Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL [Lords]

JOSEPH ROWNTREE MEMORIAL TRUST BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time

EDINBURGH COLLEGE OF ART ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read a Second time; to be considered Tomorrow.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the British Transport Commission, presented by Mr. John Maclay; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Monday next; and to be printed. [Bill 135.]

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNTY COURT OFFICES (WHITSUN CLOSING)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Attorney-General if he will consider giving greater publicity to the fact that county courts are closed on the Friday before Whitsun, and thus save those members of the public wishing to go to a county court on that day an unnecessary journey.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): It is the practice, before a public holiday, to display in county court offices a notice stating the days on which the office will be closed. It would not be practicable to give further publicity to the closing of the court offices.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that on the Friday before Whitsun a constituent of mine went from Twickenham to Brentford County Court and found the doors closed, with no notice whatever of the closing of the court? He was not aware that it was closed. Would it not be a good idea to give further publicity to this closing or, alternatively, to merge this holiday with the annual holidays instead of having it on the Friday before Whitsun?

The Solicitor-General: I knew about my hon. Friend's constituent because he wrote and told me, and I am very sorry about it. It is not easy to think of a way in which wider publicity could be given. It is not at all clear that if a notice about it was given to the Press it would be published. It would not have a very high news value. The amalgamation of the celebration of Her Majesty's birthday with other holidays raises a much wider question. The Statutory Rule and Order which closes county court offices on the Friday before Whitsun follows the practice with regard to the Civil Service as a whole.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS (CONSOLIDATION)

Mr. Knox Cunningham: asked the Attorney-General, in view of the fact that the law relating to merchant shipping was last consolidated 65 years ago, when a start will be made to consolidate the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894–1958.

The Solicitor-General: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the Answer which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General gave him on 11th November, 1958.

Mr. Knox Cunningham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the Answer which his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation gave some four years ago, that he was attracted towards the idea of consolidation but was not able to proceed with it at that time? Will my right hon. and learned Friend indicate whether he can proceed in five, ten or twenty years' time?

The Solicitor-General: I am aware of the Answer to which my hon. and learned Friend refers. He himself knows all about this. Some process much more


drastic than consolidation is required in relation to these Statutes. I cannot give any undertaking when the process—I suppose it would mean starting all over again—could be undertaken.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Solicitor-General aware that the relevant trade unions have had this matter under consideration for some years? Before taking any step by way of consolidation or amendment, will the right hon. Gentleman consult them with a view to ensuring that the Statute which will emerge will be a really useful one?

The Solicitor-General: I feel sure that the interests of all those concerned would be considered when the time came to put legislation before this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND REGISTRY

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Attorney-General what is the approximate average time taken in London in registration of title on sale of landed property.

The Solicitor-General: On average, approximately eight weeks is taken to complete first registration of title and seven weeks to register dealings in land already registered.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman do nothing to speed up the Land Registry operations? Considerable inconvenience is caused now to solicitors and others owing to this long delay. As the area of compulsory registration will be extended, surely the time occupied in registration will also be extended unless the Department is speeded up?

The Solicitor-General: Every effort is being made to reduce the delay by recruiting more staff and, I am afraid, by requiring them to work overtime. The trouble is that the work is so much increased that any slight increase in the buying habits of the public is necessarily reflected in the work of the Land Registry. We are doing the best we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDEPENDENT AIR TRAVEL LIMITED

Mr. Rankin: asked the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to instituting criminal proceedings

against the former directors of Independent Air Travel Limited.

The Solicitor-General: None. The time for instituting proceedings for offences against the Air Navigation Order and Regulations expired on 2nd March, 1959. No evidence that would justify a prosecution for offences against the Order or Regulations was submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend by that date; and no evidence that would justify a prosecution for any other offence has been submitted to him at any time.

Mr. Rankin: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman regard this as a very serious matter, in view of the terms of the report of the learned Mr. Justice Phillimore? Is he aware that the report states clearly that the directors of the company are held responsible for the deaths of a great many people, while in their own evidence they sought to lay the blame for these deaths on a man who could not speak for himself, the captain of the plane? Is nothing going to be done about that? Is that the position?

The Solicitor-General: The position is precisely as I have stated. The House will remember that in this case the inquest took rather a long time and the practice, as indicated by the courts of law, is broadly that charges for lesser offences than manslaughter ought not to be brought forward until after the completion of the inquest proceedings. I am not saying—I hope the House would not think I was saying—that there was at any material time before my right hon. and learned Friend evidence of any lesser offence than manslaughter here committed. I concede that there are now disclosed by the investigation offences against the Regulations, but, as I have explained, there is a statutory period of limitation already past in respect of those.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the Solicitor-General realise that there will be great disturbance about this fact? There is serious concern about the revelation of the breaking of the Regulations over a period consistent with all the calamitous consequences. Are we to understand from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that no further action is contemplated or can be taken?

The Solicitor-General: I am simply explaining to the House why there could not now be a prosecution for the particular alleged offences specified in the report. The Statutory Regulation prohibits it at this stage.

Mr. Rankin: Is Parliament now in the situation where a group of people are designated by an honourable justice of this country as criminals in fact and nothing can be done about it? Are we helpless in that matter? Is that what the Solicitor-General is saying?

The Solicitor-General: I do not quite accept the words of the hon. Gentleman in saying "designated as criminals". I should not be content to be taken as accepting those words as strictly accurate. Unfortunately, I have not got the report in my hands at the moment, but I have told the House, and I must make it quite plain, that there is not available, there have never been submitted, to my right hon. and learned Friend, evidence justifying a prosecution for any offence in respect of which it is now possible to prosecute in law.

Mr. Ede: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered the desirability, in view of what has happened in this case, of ensuring that inquiries which have to be completed before the law is able to step in are completed in time for a prosecution to take place if, in fact, one is justified?

The Solicitor-General: The House will realise that one would be most eager to see that we never reach a position of this kind again. On the other hand, as far as I know, there is no possibility of dictating to coroners, for instance, what they do. I will give every possible consideration to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in this respect, and will consider doing everything that can possibly be done to prevent a position of this kind being reached again.

Oral Answers to Questions — MORRIS v. MORRIS

Mr. L. M. Lever: asked the Attorney-General what inquires were made by the Queen's Proctor following the decree nisi in the case of MorrisversusMorris, about which the honourable Member for Ardwick has written to him.

The Solicitor-General: It is not in the public interest to disclose particulars of inquiries made by the Queen's Proctor.

Mr. Lever: Is not the Solicitor-General aware that for some time before the decree nisi was made in this case on 9th July, 1957, the respondent put certain facts before the Queen's Proctor? Notwithstanding those facts, which would have militated against a decree absolute being made, he stated that he could take no cognisance of the facts before decree nisi, and proceeded to make the decree absolute on 21st August, 1957, six weeks after the decree nisi, notwithstanding that he had this information from the respondent, and made no request for investigation into that information before he made the decree absolute?

The Solicitor-General: I doubt whether it is useful to discuss the facts of an individual case on the Floor of the House. I know that the hon. Gentleman has had correspondence with my right hon. and learned Friend, but there is no reason to think that the Queen's Proctor did not act fully and perfectly properly in this case on all the information we have. All I am saying is that it clearly would not be in the public interest to reveal the nature of his inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Big Ben Centenary

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Works what steps are being taken to preserve in perpetuity the words of Mr. Speaker's address at the Big Ben centenary ceremony in Palace Yard; and where a verbatim copy of this speech may be obtained.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): A complete record of the Big Ben centenary ceremony, incorporating the full text of your address, Mr. Speaker, is to be printed and placed in the Libraries of this House and of another place. The House will be informed when copies are available and hon. Members will then be able to obtain them from the Vote Office. A limited number of copies will be available to members of the public on application to my Department.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will give general satisfaction, because in the view of everybody I have met who heard the speech it was a classic example of what such an oration should be on an important occasion?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Stonehenge (Model)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to provide, on the site, a large-scale model of Stonehenge in its ancient and undamaged state, in view of the increasing public interest in the monument, the rising receipts from admission fees, and the recommendation of the Ancient Monuments Board.

Mr. Molson: A design of a model suitable for outdoor exhibition is being prepared and an estimate of cost worked out. When these are available I shall be able to consider this suggestion further.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Whilst I am sure that the Minister's reply will be welcomed, can he say how long he thinks it will be before he will be in a position to give a final decision on the matter?

Mr. Molson: I do not think it will be more than a few weeks now.

Mr. N. Nicolson: If my right hon. Friend proceeds with the idea, with which I entirely agree, would he ensure that the stone used in the model is the same as the original stone, including that which came from South Wales, and that the model will not be in cement or some other modern material?

Mr. Molson: I will certainly take that interesting suggestion into account. Naturally it would add considerably to the cost of the model if the same special stone is used for it as was used when the original was erected.

Ancient Monuments (Notice Boards)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Works how many explanatory notice boards, as recommended by the Ancient Monuments Board, he has erected at sites of scheduled ancient monuments; what is the cost of each

board; what is the total expenditure so far; and what he will do to speed up the erection of these boards.

Mr. Molson: I have no statutory powers or responsibilities to mark scheduled monuments which are not in my care. At the request of owners of scheduled monuments, I have for many years been willing to provide notices giving warning of the legal penalties for damage, and some 200 of these have been erected.
I assume that the hon. Member has in mind particularly the recommendation by the Ancient Monuments Board that all scheduled monuments should be marked. For this I should need in each case the owner's consent, which might not be forthcoming. It costs about £10 to make and erect a suitable notice. There are already some 7,000 scheduled monuments in England, and at least as many remain to be scheduled. The cost in money and manpower makes it impossible for me to attempt to mark all scheduled monuments.
I have, however, recently agreed to mark a limited number of important monuments which appear to be in special danger of damage. Two notices have been erected and five more are ready for erection, at a cost so far of some £30. I am also prepared to consider providing notices in any further cases of this sort which are brought to my notice.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Minister aware that the figures he has given are very meagre? Is it really a fact that he is meeting serious opposition from owners of scheduled monuments? Is it not the case that many of those owners are proud of their ownership of the monuments and anxious that members of the general public should understand them and realise their value?

Mr. Molson: I would point out to the hon. Member that many of these monuments are barrows in agricultural areas, and that I cannot provide the manpower and the money required for marking all the scheduled monuments.

Ancient Monuments Laboratory

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to improve and expand the Ancient Monuments Laboratory; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Molson: The main function of this Laboratory is the cleaning and treatment of finds from archaeological excavations undertaken by my Department. Steps have recently been taken to provide the Laboratory with better and larger accommodation and some additional equipment. An additional temporary appointment has been made whilst the permanent staffing of the Laboratory is under review.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Minister say when he thinks this review will be finished? Is he satisfied that the paragraphs in the Report of the Ancient Monument Board for England dealing with this matter were accurate? If so, will he take energetic steps to see that the Laboratory is not of such a meagre kind that it holds up other important work?

Mr. Molson: I entirely admit that the Laboratory so far has been inadequate for the work required. There are considerable arrears to be overtaken, and it is for that reason that we are looking at the staffing. We have already increased accommodation from 875 square feet to 1,475 square feet and, if it is necessary to add to the staff, we shall be prepared to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Motor Vehicles (Atmospheric Pollution)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what investigations have been made by the Fuel Research Station, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, into the efficacy of the catalyst device or muffler, brought from the United States of America, for decontaminating and decolourising asphyxiating and noxious fumes from the exhausts of diesel oil powered vehicles; what contribution this may make to clean air policy, notably in urban and built-up areas; and whether he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): The Warren Spring Laboratory is attempting to obtain technical

details of such an American device. When these are received, the claims made for the device will be examined and, if they merit investigation, this will be undertaken.

Mr. Nabarro: What does my hon. Friend mean by, "attempting to obtain "? Cannot anybody obtain by purchase one of these catalysts, which are now fairly common in the United States of America? Since our population of vehicles has increased by more than 1½ million since the Clean Air Act, 1956, was passed, would it not be appropriate for the D.S.I.R. to hurry itself in this matter?

Mr. Nicholls: There is no question of being hurried. The first date that the Department knew that this device was available was 25th June, and it immediately made efforts to obtain particulars of it. Once it has those particulars, it will follow up by obtaining the device if the first particulars show that that is warranted.

Mr. Nabarro: When will the muffler arrive? That is the point.

Mr. Nicholls: As soon as the Department is satisfied that there is a device worthy of further investigation it will take the next steps to obtain the device.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what increased facilities are now being applied by the Fuel Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to solution of atmospheric pollution problems arising from noxious and asphyxiating motor exhaust fumes causing heavily polluted palls in urban and built-up areas, and thus derogating from progress in clean air policy.

Mr. H. Nicholls: In addition to work which they have already carried out on methods and apparatus for reducing the atmospheric pollution from petrol engines, the Warren Spring Laboratory has now started experimental work on the use of catalytic afterburners for the treatment of exhaust fumes from diesel engined motor vehicles.

Mr. Nabarro: Has my hon. Friend observed that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is so seized with


the urgency and gravity of this problem that he has now referred matters to the Clean Air Council? Can my hon. Friend say what steps he proposes to take to get advice placed by the D.S.I.R. with the Clean Air Council on this problem of exhaust fumes?

Mr. Nicholls: The advice of the D.S.I.R. is always available to other Government Departments, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the D.S.I.R. is aware of the importance of having all the up-to-date knowledge on this matter which it is possible to have.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, in pursuit of clean air policy, what investigations have been made by the Fuel Research Station, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, into increased contamination of the atmosphere in urban and built-up areas consequent upon the increase in the number of motor vehicles, notably diesel-oil powered vehicles, and the noxious fumes from exhausts; to what extent this condition has deteriorated since the passing of the Clean Air Act, 1956; and whether he will make a statement upon findings by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research as to the influence of exhaust emissions from motor vehicles during atmospheric conditions favourable to smog concentrations.

Mr. H. Nicholls: Data collected by the Warren Spring Laboratory show no indication that the amount of smoke in the air of towns has increased in recent years; in fact, in many towns it has decreased, particularly since the passing of the Clean Air Act. Continuous observations have not been made on other pollutants in the air which originate in part from motor vehicle exhausts. There are no indications from the observations that have been made that pollutants from exhaust gases from motor vehicles accumulate in times of smog more readily than do those from other sources.

Mr. Nabarro: Does not my hon. Friend agree that not all atmospheric pollution is necessarily smoke or even discernible to the eye? Although very good progress has been made in the three years since 1956 when the Clean Air Act was passed,

is it not the case that much of that progress is being nullified because no steps are being taken to reduce this appalling pall of obnoxious fumes from the exhausts of vehicles in urban and built-up areas?

Mr. Nicholls: I do not think that that can be established by the D.S.I.R. The D.S.I.R. has made the public aware of the dangers which flow from this situation. It has made public all the devices it has been able to examine. If the filters are kept clean and the machines are well maintained it is possible to reduce some of the nuisance from this source.

Government Expenditure (Priorities)

Mr. Albu: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, when he expects to receive a report from the Committee set up to advise on priorities in Government expenditure on scientific research.

Mr. H. Nicholls: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Committee on the techniques of management and control of Government-financed scientific research and development. The work of the Committee has been somewhat delayed by the untimely death of the Chairman, Sir Claude Gibb. My noble Friend has appointed Sir Solly Zuckerman, a member of the Committee, to succeed him as Chairman, and has added Sir George Edwards to the Committee. As the hon. Member will, I am sure, appreciate, the Committee's task is formidable and complex, and my noble Friend is not yet in a position to forecast when they may report.

Mr. Albu: Is the hon. Gentleman's noble Friend satisfied that the terms of reference of this Committee are broad enough, in view of the appalling problems which face this country in trying to keep up with the United States of America in some of the modern fields of scientific research, particularly aircraft development and research, nuclear research, space research, and so forth?

Mr. Nicholls: The terms of reference are very wide indeed and cover all the Government's research, both civil and defence. It is because they are so wide that the Committee's report will of necessity take some time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Boarded-out Children

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet investigated the case, concerning which the hon. and learned Member wrote to him on 19th May, of the Aberdeen mother of a boarded-out child in the custody of Kincardine County Council who desires to regain custody of her child so that he can have the benefits of family life as he grows up; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I have investigated the case of this boy most thoroughly and have written to the hon. and learned Member about it. There is nothing more I can usefully say at present.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State agree that the preservation of family life is very precious to mother and child, however poor, and that when they are parted their plight should be considered in a humane way and that mere formalities should not be used to keep them apart? Will he apply those doctrines in this case?

Mr. Maclay: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that those considerations are very much in the minds of child-care authorities and in my own mind, but I have nothing to add to what I have written to the hon. and learned Gentleman about this case.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this case a father left a family eleven or twelve years ago and has not been heard of since; that he left a family of six un-provided for and that the authority which the hon. and learned Member mentions, which happens to be part of my constituency, has provided well for the children ever since; that the boy mentioned is an epileptic aged 16 and that very good arrangements have been made for his care and that he has been well looked after?

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the method by which he exercises supervision over the allocation of the custody of boarded-out children by Kincardine County Council, with particular regard to the resumption of custody by

their parents, to preventing the division and breaking up of family life.

Mr. Maclay: Under the Children Act, the county council is entirely responsible for the arrangements made for boarding out individual children in its care. I have made regulations providing for the welfare of children boarded out by local authorities, I am shortly sending these authorities a memorandum on boarding-out, and I also offer them general guidance, both through the Child Care Inspectorate and by letter.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to the last Question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

Voluntary Service Overseas Organisation

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the Voluntary Service Overseas Organisation with a view to encouraging young secondary school-leavers to undertake social service in Asia and Africa

Mr. Maclay: My Department has supplied this organisation with information to enable them to approach schools and education authorities in Scotland.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware that there appears to be almost no Scottish participation in this imaginative and worth-while scheme? Will he not consider making grants to this organisation for the work and for encouraging particularly junior secondary school boys in Scotland to take part in this scheme?

Mr. Maclay: I agree that this is a most interesting and imaginative scheme, but I understand that the organisation which makes these arrangements has always desired that it should be a voluntary scheme unaided by State grants. But I am doing what I can to help to bring information about it to local authorities in Scotland.

Scottish Council (Development and Industry)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his recent official meeting with Lord Polwarth, Chairman


of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), on the subject of Scottish employment.

Mr. Maclay: I have had no recent meeting with the Scottish Council about employment, but, as I said in the debate on 2nd July, I am very ready, together with my right hon. Friend the President of. The Board of Trade, to meet the Council to discuss any further representations that it may wish to make on this subject, and I hope that this meeting will take place soon.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State not aware that, following a meeting he had with Lord Polwarth, Lord Polwarth said that he was completely dissatisfied with the Government's plans for Scotland and that he did not regard the Secretary of State as having any fundamental appreciation of Scotland's problems?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member must have misunderstood a statement made by the Scottish Council which referred to a letter it had received from me. That letter has not been published, but I referred to it in a recent debate. The statement was not in reference to any meeting that I had with Lord Polwarth.

Mr. Ross: The Council still said it.

Potato Harvest (Schoolchildren)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans for assistance by schools in the 1959 potato harvest.

Mr. Maclay: I estimate that 12,000 exemptions should be sufficient in respect of the 1959 potato harvest compared with the 17,500 required last year.

Mr. Thomson: In view of the gradual run-down of the scheme, would the Secretary of State not now consider giving notice to the agricultural industry that it will be stopped within a definite period of years? In the meantime, will he not consider recommending to those authorities whom he compels to provide children that they should use school holidays rather than exemption, which does the maximum damage to the school curriculum?

Mr. Maclay: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, I think it would be unwise to make a firm

decision in advance of full knowledge of the conditions that have to be met in any particular area. The second part raises a very difficult question and would require very careful consideration.

Flood Prevention

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to introduce legislation to enable county councils to take measures to prevent flood damage.

Mr. Maclay: Lgislation to confer powers on local authorities in Scotland to carry out works to prevent flooding is under consideration, but I cannot say when it will be possible to introduce a Bill.

Mr. Brewis: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in 1954 there was a flooding disaster in Creetown in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright? Since then it has not been possible to take any effective action and a repetition is to be feared. Will he press on with this legislation as fast as he can?

Mr. Maclay: I recognise that the present position is unsatisfactory, and it is because of that that legislation is being considered.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position is just as unsatisfactory as when we last had the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill before Parliament. On that occasion he and his hon. Friends strongly resisted the efforts made by the Opposition to improve the Bill by incorporating provisions to overcome this unsatisfactory position.

Mr. Maclay: It has always been realised that a different and separate type of legislation would be required to achieve the purpose that the hon. Member has in mind.

Midwives

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the salary of a domiciliary midwife and of a sister in a maternity hospital, respectively.

Mr. Maclay: The salary of a domiciliary midwife at present varies from £478 to £641 a year according to qualifications. This salary range is now under review by the Nurses and Midwives


Whitley Council. Following a recent review, the salary scale of a midwifery sister is now £655 to £830 a year.

Miss Herbison: Would the Minister not agree that these two differences in salary explain why there is a great Shortage of domiciliary midwives in Scotland? Is he not also aware that these domiciliary midwives are having a very difficult time through overwork? Will not he do something to help?

Mr. Maclay: I think the essential point is that nurses and midwives are represented by the Whitley Council. This body, as I think the hon. Lady will agree, is an excellent one and it has these matters in mind when considering salary scales in either section. I am advised that there is not a serious shortage of midwives all over Scotland, although I know that there are local problems.

Maternity Cases

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of babies are born in hospital in Aberdeen, Glasgow, and Lanarkshire, respectively.

Mr. Maclay: The provisional figures for 1958 show that 91·4 per cent. of confinements in Aberdeen took place in hospital, 63·8 per cent. in Glasgow and 5·5 per cent. in Lanarkshire.

Miss Herbison: Does the Minister not realise from those figures that there is a very grave shortage of hospitals for this work, certainly in Lanarkshire, and that also in Glasgow there ought to be a rapid increase of maternity beds? If the Minister examines those figures and the maternal mortality rate, he will be aware that there is some connection between the lack of beds and the maternal mortality rate.

Mr. Maclay: I think the hon. Lady knows that we are getting on as fast as we can with the provision of new maternity beds in Lanarkshire and Glasgow. I could send her full details, as these would be too complicated to give in a supplementary answer.

Migraine (Clinics)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many clinics exist in Scotland to provide for the special therapy of migraine under the National Health Service.

Mr. Maclay: It is not the practice in Scottish hospitals to arrange special clinics for the treatment of migraine, and I have no evidence of any demand.

Mr. Rankin: Surely that practice can be reversed? Why does the Secretary of State run away from this problem? Does he realise that in the United Kingdom some 3 million people suffer from migraine, and has he any idea of the figures as they apply to Scotland? Will he not think again about this problem because of its incidence and the upset it causes not only in professional but also in industrial life?

Mr. Maclay: I have great sympathy for those who suffer from this very distressing complaint. I understand, however, that neither the number of patients nor the methods of clinical treatment, which is important, would make special clinics desirable.

Air Services (Remote Areas)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the fact that British European Airways incurs a heavy loss in supplying remote parts of Scotland with service, he will consider making an arrangement similar to that of MacBrayne's Limited who receive a subsidy of £300,000 per annum for this type of work.

Mr. Maclay: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, who is primarily responsible, and I will examine the hon. Lady's suggestion, which was also made in the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries which has just been published. The suggestion raises wide issues, consideration of which will obviously take some time.

Mrs. Mann: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. May I add that he might consider that it places British European Airways in a very awkward position if it has to ask the foreign traveller for extra fares to subsidise the Scottish Highlands?

Mr. Maclay: I agree that all those considerations are involved.

Mr. M. Noble: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that any new system of transport bearing any similarity to MacBrayne's would be a disaster to the Highlands?

Marriages (Young Persons)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce legislation to regulate the marriage in Scotland of young persons not normally resident there.

Mr. Maclay: This Question has been considered in the past, but it has not been possible to discover any practicable method of regulating such marriages which would not involve a fundamental alteration in the Scottish marriage law.

Mrs. Mann: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Home Secretary in regard to the suggestion put forward by the Law Society of England and Wales that both laws should harmonise and so prevent Scotland being able to flout the English laws?

Mr. Maclay: I am not certain what the hon. Lady is referring to. She may know that there is a committee sitting to consider the problem of the evasion of orders in English courts by people crossing the Border.

Deaf Children (Education)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of Scottish deaf children who applied for places in the Mary Hare Grammar School and the Burwood Park School, respectively; the number who were rejected for each school at the recent joint entrance examination; the reasons for rejection; and why these pupils were not given places at St. Giles School in Edinburgh

Mr. Maclay: At the recent Joint Entrance Examination for the two schools named there were two Scottish candidates. Both were unsuccessful because they did not reach the necessary standard. Unlike the Mary Hare Grammar School and the Burwood Park School, St. Giles School is not planned to deal with very deaf children such as these two candidates.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 12th May the Under-Secretary, when replying to a Question of this nature, said to me that the number of deaf children able to benefit from senior secondary education was not sufficient to justify the establishment of a suitable school in Scotland but that such children are catered for in two schools

in England established for this purpose? How can the right hon. Gentleman make such a reply when St. Giles School in Edinburgh is approved by the Scottish Education Department, of which the right hon. Gentleman is the political head, as providing such a course for Scottish schoolchildren and has in the last few years passed four children for the senior secondary leaving certificate?

Mr. Maclay: I am advised that the training in St. Giles for the kind of people that the hon. Member has in mind raises very complex questions of educational policy. It is not something about which I should like to make any statement today.

Scottish Aviation Ltd.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the forced redundancy of several hundred skilled craftsmen and others by Scottish Aviation, Limited, if he will place orders for Pioneer aircraft for the air ambulance services in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.

Mr. Maclay: I have already arranged for the suitability of the new Twin Pioneer 3 for the Scottish air ambulance service to be assessed; the decision whether to order it must await that assessment.

Sir T. Moore: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Twin Pioneer is peculiarly well adapted for such a purpose as I have mentioned in my Question in those remote areas? Will he also bear in mind that sales are desperately needed?

Mr. Maclay: I am well aware of the merits of this aeroplane, but my hon. Friend will realise that I must await a full assessment of its suitability for this service.

Houses, Douglas

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the Scottish Special Housing Association houses at Douglas, in respect of the construction of which the Exchequer bears an annual burden of £11,500, are now unoccupied; and for how long this has been so.

Mr. Maclay: At the end of last week, 23 Association houses were vacant, the


average period of vacancy being fifteen weeks.

Mr. Maitland: Does not this represent a rather considerable debt burden, which is unproductive and unused? Is my right hon. Friend still doing everything he can to have the availability of these houses brought to the attention of industrialists and others in the hope of persuading industry to come to Douglas?

Mr. Mac-lay: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is doing everything he can to interest industrialists in the possibilities of Douglas.

Water Supplies, Chapelton

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a number of farms in the parish of Chapelton, in the county of Lanark, are still without a piped water supply with consequent damage to their productive capacity, as well as occasional menace to health; and when he expects a piped water supply to become available.

Mr. Maclay: I understand that the farms concerned already have private piped supplies, but that a public supply should be available to them in some eighteen months' time from the county Council's new scheme for the area, which is expected to start shortly.

Mr. Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these farmers were all told, more than two years ago, that this public pipe supply was coming shortly? Is he aware that surveys were made and encouragement given, and that the farmers have been waiting in vain? Will he do something to hurry it up?

Mr. Maclay: This is a fairly large scheme for distributing water from the Daer supply. It involves the installation of pumping equipment in addition to the usual works.

Peterhead Prison

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the persons and bodies, outside the Government service, consulted by the Governor of Peterhead prison; how many such meetings have been held for the purpose of devising a scheme under which prisoners in Peterhead prison can and will be employed locally in the public

interest; and what results have been achieved.

Mr. Maclay: The Governor has had some discussion with the town clerk and one informal meeting with representatives of the town council, but no firm proposals have yet been formulated.

Mr. Hughes: Has the right hon. Gentleman not noticed that my Question referred to bodies outside the Government service? I admit that municipal bodies are outside the Government service, but can he say whether any of those scientific bodies concerned with the rehabilitation of prisoners has been consulted about these matters?

Mr. Maclay: I am afraid that I shall have to ask for notice of that question.

Glasgow Overspill Population

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the 194 families whose applications have been approved for transfer from Glasgow to overspill areas are likely to move.

Mr. Maclay: The approval and housing of overspill families is a continuous operation, the rate of which will rapidly increase as houses built specifically for overspill are completed. The movement of the 194 families depends on a variety of factors, including their personal wishes, the dates on which their jobs will be ready for them, and the dates on which suitable houses can be made available in the receiving area of their choice.

Mr. McInnes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Glasgow's overspill is 300,000 people, and that in two years and two months under this Act we have transported 38 families? At that rate of progress it will take over 100 years. Why not be honest with the people of Glasgow and tell them that they must rot and die in their festering slums because the right hon. Gentleman has no solution?

Mr. Maclay: That is a most misleading construction to put on the figures. The corporation and local receiving authorities are to be congratulated on the progress they are making, with work on over 1,000 houses in hand, excluding a further 900 now being built in the new towns.

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses have been completed and occupied by


former Glasgow citizens in the new towns of East Kilbride and Cumbernauld since June, 1957.

Mr. Maclay: Between 1st July, 1957, and 30th June, 1959, 912 new houses at East Kilbride and 20 new houses at Cumbernauld were occupied by families from Glasgow.

Mr. McInnes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his own figure in respect of the transfer of population to Glasgow to the new town was 20,000 in ten years, and that in over two and a half years he has transferred less than 2,000? How does he hope to achieve his object?

Mr. Maclay: This kind of movement must build up as the years go by. It cannot start at a high level in the first year, before the houses are built.

Mr. McInnes: My complaint is that there is no movement.

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the number of local authority houses completed in redevelopment areas in the city of Glasgow since June, 1957; and what is the average cost of building a house in such areas.

Mr. Maclay: Since June, 1957, 190 houses have been completed in clearance and comprehensive development areas in Glasgow. The average tender cost of these houses was about £1,500.

Mr. McInnes: Is the Secretary of State aware that because of its inability to transfer population, Glasgow cannot now proceed with any further redevelopment because it has no sites? What is the cost of building a house in the redevelopment area? It is over £3,000. Cannot he relieve the City Corporation of some of its financial obligations?

Mr. Maclay: I cannot accept the implications in the earlier part of the hon. Member's supplementary question.

Larkhall-Uddingston By-pass

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is expected that a start will be made on the construction of the Larkhall-Uddingston by-pass on the trunk road A.74.

Mr. Maclay: I hope shortly to put in hand the preparation of a detailed scheme

for this by-pass, but I cannot at this stage say when this preparatory work will be completed and the road works started.

Mr. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the most congested part of the trunk road A.74 and that it runs through what is probably the area with the largest number of unemployed? Is he further aware that it is near the heavy steel industry, which could provide steel for the bridges? Does he not think that he should get a move on?

Mr. Maclay: I am anxious to make the most rapid progress I can on this part of the road scheme, as well as the other parts of it.

Roundabout, Canderside

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of the roundabout now under construction on trunk road A.74 at Canderside, near Larkhall; and if this roundabout will be by-passed when the reconstruction and realignment of A.74 is completed.

Mr. Maclay: The estimated cost is £26,000. The reconstructed and realigned A.74 when completed will pass east of the roundabout, but its construction is desirable in any case as part of the general improvement of road communications in the area.

Mr. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a dreadful waste of public money and that this roundabout will be completely redundant when the A.74 is reconstructed and realigned slightly to the east of the roundabout.

Mr. Maclay: I am advised that that will not be the case. It is anticipated that the junction will cater for all traffic proceeding to the Larkhall area and also westwards via the A.71 road to Ayr. ft will not be an unnecessary roundabout with the development of traffic that we expect.

Economic Development

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland is he is satisfied that the existing official agencies at his disposal to give effect to the policies of Her Majesty's Government for the economic well-being of Scotland are adequate for the purpose; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maclay: I am generally satisfied with the existing structure, but I am always willing to consider suggestions for possible improvements.

Mr. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Labour told me last Wednesday, in a Written Answer, that Scotland had fallen short, by about 90,000 jobs, of its share of the new employment that has been made available in the last eight years? In view of that, if the existing structure and agencies are all right, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there is something very far wrong with his policy?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am very much aware of the problems we have in Scotland, because we have had recent debates on the subject. I am not satisfied that we should get greater progress by producing new agencies or organisations unless we knew precisely what they were going to do, but we are pressing on very hard with the measures which have already had some success.

Mr. Fraser: I am not asking for a new organisation. Will not the right hon. Gentleman think of giving us a new policy?

Licensing Laws (Committee)

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now considered the representations made to him about abuses in Sunday drinking in Scotland; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir. I propose to appoint a Committee of Inquiry to review the Sunday drinking laws and also certain other provisions of the Scottish licensing law which have attracted adverse criticism. The Committee's terms of reference will be as follows:
To review the law of Scotland relating to—

(a) the sale and supply of exciseable liquor on Sundays;
(b) the hours on week-days during which the sale and supply of exciseable liquor are permitted;
(c) the constitution of Licensing Courts and Courts of Appeal; and
(d) the arrangements for granting certificates authorising the sale of exciseable liquor in areas of housing development and re-development;

to consider what changes in the law, if any, are desirable in the public interest; and to report."
I shall announce the membership of the Committee as soon as possible.

Mr. Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this announcement comes as a very welcome response to representations that I and others have made to him in the last few years? Can he state whether the Committee will consult, for example, the Presbyteries, the Church and National Committee of the Kirk, the police, local authorities and other interested bodies?

Mr. Maclay: I am well aware of the situation from the numerous representations I have received on this subject. The Committee will be able to receive evidence on the subject from anyone it wishes, subject to any rules it may draw up itself.

Mr. Woodburn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a general inquiry? Is there any truth in the announcement in this morning's Press that this is preliminary to handing back to private enterprise State public houses in Scotland, including Gretna?

Mr. Maclay: That is not a matter which concerns Scotland alone, and no deductions of the kind suggested by the right hon. Gentleman should be drawn from the statement I have made.

Firm (Trading Activities)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Lord Advocate what progress he has made in his investigations into the activities of the firm, of which details have been sent to him by the hon. Member for West Fife.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): Extensive inquiries are at present being made into the trading activities of the firm to which the hon. Member refers. As the activities of the firm were widespread the inquiries will inevitably take some time.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that answer gives a certain amount of satisfaction? Would he not agree that the activities of the Master Vending Machine Co. Ltd. have been thoroughly reprehensible? Will he take every step to ensure that further exploitation of quite


humble people is brought to an end? Can he give an assurance that he will be in a position to give us a reply before the Recess?

The Lord Advocate: it would be inappropriate that I should express any view or criticism of the company until these investigations have taken place and have been fully considered. In view of the ramifications of the company, I am afraid I cannot give any undertaking that the inquiries will be completed before the end of this Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Industrial Development, Sunderland

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has now taken regarding the development of sites for industrial purposes within the county borough of Sunderland.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): The Board of Trade has just authorised the building of a new factory of 35,000 square feet in Sunderland out of public funds which should provide in due course 170 new jobs.

Mr. Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary will realise that this will be splendid news for Sunderland. Can he say when the building work will be started and when it is anticipated that production in the factory will be started?

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot give an actual date, but I understand that at the moment we are discussing particular sites with a firm which has decided to go ahead with all possible speed.

Scottish Aviation Limited, Prestwick

Sir T. Moore: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the discharge of hundreds of skilled craftsmen by Scottish Aviation Limited, Prestwick, during the past year owing to shortage of orders; and what plans he has in mind to encourage some analogous industries to move to the district so as to prevent these craftsmen being lost to Ayrshire and Scotland.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Yes, Sir. I am aware that 180 skilled craftsmen have been discharged by Scottish Aviation Limited,

Prestwick, during the past year. I am endeavouring to persuade certain firms to go to Prestwick in order to keep these skilled men in employment.

Sir T. Moore: Has my hon. Friend considered the construction of bus and coach bodies which, to some extent at any rate, would maintain the skill of these men and provide work locally?

Mr. Rodgers: That is a very interesting suggestion which I should like to look into.

Mr. Ross: I am very interested in how the Board of Trade can assist people in this way. Has the President of the Board of Trade any factories available? This is not in a Development Area or a D.A.T.A.C. Area. What exactly is the hon. Gentleman suggesting when he says he is endeavouring to interest people in this part of Prestwick? Would it not be far better if the Government stirred themselves and helped the company in its present difficulties?

Mr. Rodgers: I am prevented by the confidences of companies which I have recently seen from giving a complete answer to the hon. Gentleman. But I can assure him that I have seen at least one firm in the last few days concerned with Prestwick.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Companies (Political Expenditure)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals have been made to the appellate authority on questions concerning the admissibility of expenditure incurred by companies on political campaigns against taxable profit; and with what results.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): I regret this information is not available.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Chancellor say why it is not available? Is it because there have been no appeals and, if so, is that because the Government have been allowing this expenditure to rank for tax purposes? Is it not entirely wrong that the taxpayers should pay for a political campaign?

Mr. Amory: The reason is that inspectors of taxes are not required to notify headquarters of all appeals from their decisions. I think the general position has been made amply clear by statements from my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary and myself. Expenditure of a political nature is, prima facie, not allowable. Where the inspector of taxes is in any doubt about whether or not it is political expenditure, it is his invariable practice to challenge the claim.

Mr. H. Morrison: In view of the fact that past Governments, including Conservative Governments, have taken enormous trouble to control and pass laws on the political expenditure of the trade unions, can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is that the Government are so utterly indifferent to and standing aloof from the question of the political expenditure of private limited liability companies?

Mr. Amory: What the right hon. Gentleman has implied is not so. We are not standing aloof. The statement of policy which I have mentioned is a perfectly clear one. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not the job of the Government to interfere in the settlement of the affairs of any individual taxpayer.

Mr. Woodburn: Does not the difficulty arise from the fact that, in the final result, civil servants are asked to judge what is political expenditure? Would it not be better to have a committee representing all parties which would judge in doubtful cases whether expenditure was political? Civil servants cannot be expected to judge that.

Mr. Amory: That is exactly what the appeal procedure is provided for. It is provided so that the civil servant's decision on a difficult matter of expenditure shall not be final.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Since the trade unions have to make clear what amount of money they receive from the political levy and how it is spent, should not the same apply to others who spend money on political work?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that arises from this Question.

Mr. Remnant: Will my right hon. Friend restate the position with regard to trade unions and their subventions to Members of Parliament and political parties?

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (NUCLEAR TESTS)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider making representations to President de Gaulle against atom tests over Africa, in view of dangers to the well-being of the people of Africa for whom Her Majesty's Government are responsible.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would refer the hon. Member to what I said on this subject on 9th July.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he said nothing in that Answer to reassure the Africans? Is he aware that there is a considerable volume of African opinion which regards the people responsible for atomic warfare as super-savages? Is he aware that Africans converted by the Church of Scotland are thinking of sending a deputation to 10, Downing Street to convert the tenant to Christianity?

The Prime Minister: I would remind the hon. Gentleman of the reply given yesterday by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs:
The French Government have stated that their test—which will be of an atomic, not a hydrogen, bomb—will be held in such a way as to cause no damage to health in neighbouring territories ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Monday, 13th July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 2.]

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.A. FORCES, UNITED KINGDOM (OPERATIONAL USE)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Prime Minister (1) to what extent during the course of his visit earlier this year to the United States of America he discussed with President Eisenhower the procedure to be followed before the command is given for the operational use of United States nuclear forces stationed on United Kingdom territory:


(2) in view of the high state of readiness in which United Kingdom-based nuclear forces are now maintained, what further steps he now proposes to take to ensure that the existing machinery for obtaining the necessary positive decision from Her Majesty's Government for the use of such forces, is sufficiently speedy for such purposes.

The Prime Minister: With regard to my discussions with President Eisenhower, I have nothing to add to the account I gave to the House on 25th March. It would not be in the public interest to give the House details of our procedures in these matters. But I believe them to be satisfactory.

Mr. Beswick: What sort of democracy does the Prime Minister think this is if we are not allowed to know the arrangements under which one day we may be called on to commit suicide? If there is a satisfactory workable arrangement, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what it is?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought it was quite clear that it would not be in the public interest to go into great detail about the processes and procedures which we should follow. Successive Governments have been satisfied with these procedures and I regard them as satisfactory and the right ones to have.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister what is the territorial extent of the Anglo-United States double veto on the use of nuclear weapons.

The Prime Minister: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the understanding on the operational use in an emergency of bases in this country by United States forces. This applies to all bases in this country on which United Slates aircraft may be stationed at the relevant time.

Mr. Warbey: Has the Prime Minister taken account of the fact that so long as American nuclear weapons and bases are located in this country it is quite possible for the people of Britain to be obliterated as the result of a nuclear war arising out of the use of nuclear weapons located, say, in Formosa? Has the Prime Minister given any thought to the political problems arising out of this

situation? What answer has he and his party to this problem?

The Prime Minister: I was asked the territorial extent of the so-called "double veto" on American aircraft on British bases, and I have given a reply. They are under the control both of Her Majesty's Government and of the American Government. The policy of having these bases is one which has been pursued now by successive Governments for a long period, and I believe that it commends itself to the majority of the House and to the country.

Mr. Beswick: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to look at one aspect of this matter again? He has repeatedly said that the arrangement under which Britain has a veto on the use of these weapons has been in use for some time under successive Governments, but does he not appreciate that the character of these weapons has changed very considerably since the days of the Labour Government and that there now does not appear to be time for consultation between Governments? Will he tell us how this difficulty is met?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will reflect, he will realise that the circumstances—which we hope will never arise—are those which would, in our view, permit of the arrangements which we have ourselves made and indeed have inherited from our predecessors.

Mr. S. Silverman: Whatever Her Majesty's Government—this Government, the previous Government, or any other—may have agreed to in the past, may I ask the Prime Minister to address himself to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) in his supplementary question? Is it not clear that if the double veto extends territorially only to air bases in the United Kingdom there is no protection at all, and that the agreement does not go anything like far enough, since the consequence of warfare initiated elsewhere would be a nuclear attack upon this country?

The Prime Minister: That is a situation which has always applied. I think that very close co-operation between the British and American Governments is therefore all the more important and should be pursued by all British Governments in these difficult and dangerous times.

Oral Answers to Questions — VICTORIA CROSS (ANNUITY)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now completed his inquiry into the position of holders of the Victoria Cross in respect of an annuity under the Royal Warrant; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, but I hope to be able to make a statement before the House rises.

Mr. Shinwell: In the interim, will the right hon. Gentleman consider that many of the recipients of the Victoria Cross are suffering severely from a strained financial situation and that many of them dislike the idea of appealing to the voluntary agencies? Will he conduct an exhaustive inquiry to ensure that no holder of the Victoria Cross is suffering from financial strain?

The Prime Minister: I indicated I would look into this matter myself. I am discussing it with different Departments and with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth), who is chairman of the Victoria Cross Association. I hope to be able to make a statement before the House rises.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMIT MEETING

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the uncertainty arising as to the length of time which would permit consultations with the United States Government in the event of nuclear attack, he will discuss with Mr. Khrushchev at the forthcoming Summit Conference the desirability of an agreement on safeguards against surprise attack.

The Prime Minister: As I told the hon. and learned Gentleman on 7th July, we have not yet reached the point of deciding what topics should be discussed at a Summit Meeting.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not the fact that the discussions on the provision of measures against surprise attack have been in a state of deadlock since 18th December last year? In these circumstances, would not the Prime Minister agree that the problem is one of considerable importance and some urgency? Will he bear in mind the need for this problem to be discussed at a Summit Conference?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly bear in mind the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES

3.30 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): I beg to move,
That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1959, dated 24th June, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: Would it meet the desire of the House if we discussed this Scheme and the following four Statutory Instruments on the one Motion?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Very well. That may be done.

Lord John Hope: As the House knows, the broad purpose of the assistance which is given to the near and middle-water fleet in the form of building grants and loans and operating subsidies is to enable this section of the industry to modernise its fleet, which a few years ago, was almost wholly composed of old and obsolescent coal-burning trawlers. Substantial progress has been made, but there is still a long way to go.
What we all want to see is a prosperous fishing industry, but there can be no lasting prosperity in this or any other industry if the tools of production are getting old and rusty, in this case the fishing vessels themselves. Despite a great deal of new building, especially since the inception of the grants and loans scheme, there were still at the end of last year in the fleet no fewer than 200 vessels which had been built more than forty years ago. The aim of the Government's subsidy policy has been to facilitate the modernisation of the fleet by enabling some of the older, uneconomic vessels to carry on and so maintain supplies of fish to the housewife, while the new fleet is coming into being. The statistics show, I think, that we have succeeded in doing just this.
We are all anxious that this period of transition should not be unduly protracted. The subsidy was never intended to keep obsolete and inefficient vessels at sea indefinitely. So what we are trying to do is to maintain a balance between the run-down of the old coal-burners and their replacement by

modern vessels. Latterly, however, the scrapping rate has not kept pace with the rate of rebuilding.
The White Fish Authority has, in its Annual Report, drawn attention to the fact that in 1958, for the first time since the war, the numerical strength of the near and middle-water fleet was greater at the end of the year than at the beginning, although with the introduction of new and more efficient vessels we should rather have expected some contraction of the fleet. Indeed, in the eleven months since 1st August, 1958, when the current subsidy rates were introduced. only 35 vessels—17 in Scotland and 18 in England and Wales—have gone out. and there are still 257 coal burners in commission. I understand that about 20 of them have recently been laid up at Aberdeen.
These figures suggest that, at the present level of subsidy, owners are finding it possible to keep on a number of old boats rather longer than is desirable and, I believe, against the long-term interests of the industry. At the recent rate of scrapping the replacement of the trawler fleet by modern vessels will take another seven or eight years. The Government consider that that is too long. That is why, for the second year running, we propose to reduce the subsidy for steam trawlers. I want to emphasise that the cut we are making is not severe. The rate of cut varies according to the size of the vessel, from 5s. to 30s. per day and this represents an average reduction of about 7 per cent. in the present subsidies.
We are making this moderate cut-looking at it in some ways it may be too moderate—because we have taken into account that certain operating costs have risen, and because we also recognise that there is a danger that too sharp a reduction in their number could bear hardly on particular ports which depend very heavily on coal-burning vessels for their trade, and unemployment may be above the average. I know that this is a point which causes some hon. Members a good deal of concern, for example, in places like Aberdeen, Milford Haven, and North Shields, where there is still a high proportion of coal-burners in the fleet. Perhaps I can say a word about Aberdeen as I, personally, know the circumstances best there.
In Aberdeen, although the rebuilding of the fleet was slow in getting under way, substantial progress has been made, and I am pleased to note that more applications for grant and loan assistance have been approved for Aberdeen than for any other port in the United Kingdom. At the end of June there were 50 motor trawlers and liners fishing out of Aberdeen, and I understand that a further 30 are on order. During the past seven years 84 coal burners have been scrapped. The new diesels are, of course, more efficient than the old coal burners and, size for size, bring in more fish. Some contraction in the number of trawlers was to be expected and, in fact, has already amounted to 40 per cent. in Aberdeen over the same period.
Despite this, however, trawler landings at Aberdeen have risen by about 20 per cent. and the number of men from the Port of Aberdeen employed in fishing has remained steady. Since this contraction in the number of vessels in the Aberdeen trawler fleet has so far been accomplished with such little disturbance to the employment position of fishermen generally, the Government see no reason why the remainder of the transition should cause any serious dislocation. But, as I said earlier, we consider that some quickening of the pace is desirable to secure our objective of modernisation in the ten-year period for which grants and loans for new building were authorised in 1953.
Apart from this reduction of steam trawlers there are two other changes in the existing rates of subsidy which I shall mention.
The first affects oil-fired steam vessels built since 1952. There are only five of these vessels, all at Grimsby, all built with the aid of grants and loans, and, as the House was told last year, we feel that they should be treated for subsidy purposes in the same way as diesel vessels of the same size which receive no subsidy. As a first step, their subsidy was reduced by half last year with the intention of eliminating it entirely this year. However, as these vessels have been less profitable in the last year, we are not proposing to eliminate the subsidy immediately, but only to reduce it by half next year. It is still our intention, subject to a review of their opera-

tions, that they should thereafter be treated in the same way as their diesel counterparts.
The other change is to reduce from £6 10s. per day to £5 per day the subsidy for seine net vessels over 70 feet in length which normally make voyages of not more than seven days' duration. These vessels, I should say, as opposed to the last, are all Scottish, and our object in reducing their rate is simply to bring their rate into line with the rate which applies to motor trawlers of the same size and so to remove the anomaly of having different rates for similar vessels competing with each other. With the introduction of new types of gear, these vessels between 70 and 80 feet are engaging to an increasing extent in both trawling and seining, and they can change from one method to the other very easily.
I do not think that it would make sense to maintain the differing rates of subsidy for the two methods of fishing, but, in any case, we think that the circumstances of these relatively large and generally successful vessels in themselves justify the cut. The profits made in 1958 on average were, in fact, substantially higher than in the previous year and—having regard to the capital involved—compare favourably with those made by other sections of the fleet. So much for white fish.
As regards the herring fleet, we are not proposing any changes. Though herring fishing has been more profitable during the past year, we feel there is still a need, as there was when the herring subsidy was instituted in 1957 to arrest the tendency for boats to switch from herring fishing to fishing for white fish. Last year, the profits and earnings in this section of the industry showed some improvement which the Government welcome, and they hope that this will result in more boats taking part in this fishing. Of course, the virtual disappearance of herring from some areas is a matter of real concern. No one knows precisely why it has occurred and, as hon. Members know, the Government are devoting great efforts, through their scientists, to elucidating this problem in conjunction with the other countries concerned; but I should say that the fishermen themselves often have as much to do with the level of landings as the herring, and a large fleet will almost always catch


more than a smaller fleet. The Government, therefore, hope that more boats will go in for herring fishing. Despite the general decline, fishing has been quite good off some parts of the coast, and recently off the Buchan coast and off Shetland, good catches have been made.
We estimate that the total cost of the white fish and herring subsidies in the coming year, on the basis of these proposals, will be about £2¾ million, as compared with £3 million in the current subsidy year. We expect that by the end of the current subsidy year we shall have spent on these subsidies about £15¾ million of the £17 million authorised by the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1957, so that the unexpended balance will be insufficient for the needs of the year ahead. The Act, however, provides, that the limit of £17 million may be raised to £19 million, with the approval of the House, and the purpose of the Aggregate Amount of Grants Order is to authorise this additional £2 million so as to provide sufficient funds for the period covered by the subsidy schemes we are now discussing.
This £2 million will not cover our needs much beyond the end of next subsidy year, and it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation next Session to provide additional funds. As the House knows, the Committee of Inquiry, under the chairmanship of Sir Alexander Fleck, is looking into the whole question of the future of the fishing industry, in the light of the Committee's Report, the Government will decide whether financial assistance to the industry should be extended beyond the periods authorised by the 1957 Act. In the meantime, our intention is to continue the white fish and herring subsidies on their present basis, subject, of course, to such variations as may be made as a result of the reviews which take place annually.
The remaining two Statutory Instruments before the House affect the other side of the Government's assistance to the industry, namely, the grants which are made towards the construction of new vessels. These amending Instruments increase the maximum grant which may be paid from £30,000 to £37,500 in the case of white fish vessels and from £15,000 to £17,500 in the case

of herring vessels. These increases are intended to take account of the increases in building costs which have taken place since the ceilings were fixed in 1956 and to ensure that the same degree of assistance is given as when grants were first introduced in 1953. This should be of real help to the industry and is something that it was most anxious to have.
I commend these Statutory Instruments to the House and I hope that hon. Members will welcome them as the means of maintaining in the coming year the encouraging progress that has already been made towards the modernisation of the fleet. I am certain that hon. Members on both sides will agree that what we want is an efficient and competitive industry and that this must be the objective of our policy.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask if, when the Question is put, the various Statutory Instruments are to be put separately, or as one?

Mr. Speaker: Each of the other Statutory Instruments will have to be moved separately afterwards, but discussion on all the five Instruments can take place upon this Question which is now before the House.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: I am sure that we are grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary for his very lucid exposition of the plans of the Government for loans and subsidies, but I must say that it was not a very convincing statement and that it will not satisfy many hon. Members on either side of the House.
First, may I say that all hon. Members concerned with the interest of the fishing industry, certainly my right hon. and hon. Friends, are gratified that the Government have at last acceded to the repeated demands of all of us who have taken part in these debates in past years that adequate time should be given to consideration of these Statutory Instruments, and at a reasonable hour. This is the first time for some years that we who have taken part in these debates have had an opportunity to approach these important matters at an acceptable time, with the prospect of being able to deal at length with a subject which affects our interests so vitally. I


remember well that last year the Minister rose at two minutes before midnight, an unconscionable hour to move such a Motion, and that I left the building at a quarter past two. So we are grateful for the consideration which has been given to our complaints and I hope that this will be an augury for the future.
Having said that, I wish to register a protest, which, I have no doubt, will be supported by hon. Members opposite, at the restrictions which must inevitably be placed upon us in considering the wider interests and problems of this industry this afternoon. Our debate is concerned with examining the Instruments before us dealing with grants and loans for the building and conversion of vessels and with the subsidies for trawlers and herring drifters operating in inshore, near and middle waters. In considering the tremendous scope of the fishing industry, these play an important but not the whole part of our fishing activities. There is a wide range of interest which should be debated, but it would seem that we are never likely to get time to discuss them.
We dare not mention this afternoon the Icelandic trouble, the attacks on our trawlers and the dangers they run, or the Faroese Agreement, the general question of fishery limits, the over-fishing of certain waters, the general question of the conservation of stocks, or the disastrous falling off of herring fishing, particularly the great East Anglian autumn herring fishing. These are very serious problems, Mr. Speaker, but you will note that I am not discussing them—I am just mentioning them. We have no real opportunity of discussing the last conference at Geneva, or the vital importance of the next conference. The vexed question of quotas is barred and I suppose I must not say anything about processing, deep freeze, canning and animal foods.
The operations of the Fleck Committee are to remain shrouded in mystery. Worst of all, and this is almost unbelievable, we have not had, nor can we have in this debate, a discussion on the Reports of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. We have not even discussed last year's Report and we have no opportunity of discussing this year's. I appreciate the value of these Reports. They are extremely able documents and

it really is a tragedy that we never have an opportunity to say anything about them except incidentally.
I say quite seriously to the Government that it is time that we had a full debate on the fishing industry. We should not hide behind these Instruments to gag one of our major industries. The Government dare not do this to agriculture or mining, the other two industries which develop and exploit the natural resources of our land.
There seems to be a view prevailing in some fishing circles, and, indeed, in the House, among some hon. Members, that the inshore, near and middle-water sections of the industry play but a minor rôle in the fish production of the country. That is not so, as I will strive to show later by the relative figures taken from the White Fish Authority's Report. The Secretary of State for Scotland, during the Second Reading of the White Fish and Herring Industry Bill, on 20th January, 1953, used these words:
… without adequate rebuilding and with scrapping going on, the future of the fleets is obviously in grave danger. They must not be allowed to sink to too low a level. The inshore, near and middle-water men provide the best quality and greatest variety of our fish, and these cannot be replaced by imports. If we are to have the best quality fish for human consumption in this country, we must retain our inshore and near and middle-water fleets. I am afraid that at present prices capital is not forthcoming for the rebuilding of these fleets."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1953: Vol. 510, c. 53.]
Note the phrase
The inshore, near and middle-water men provide the best quality and greatest variety of our fish, and these cannot be replaced by imports".
Britain, in spite of its maritime traditions, is not a great fish consuming community, although, latterly, there is a growing tendency on the part of animals to eat more fish, if we judge by looking at advertisements, particularly those on television. I am glad to see that someone is eating fish. To cultivate a taste for fish it is essential that quality and variety should be maintained. These are very largely the products of the inshore, near and middle-water fishermen. They are, as we all know, sole, plaice, turbot, halibut, hake and haddock, to name only a few.
The proportion of fish caught in 1950 goes in this ratio: from distant waters,


45·2 per cent. to the value of £22¼ million; near and middle waters 31·4 per cent. to the value of £18,800,000; inshore, 14 per cent. to the value of nearly £6½ million. This shows that just over half the total catch by British vessels, ignoring the foreign imports landed in this country, come from inshore, near and middle waters and more than half the value by over £2 million.
The tonnage of landings is almost equally divided. I say this to emphasise the importance of this great section of the fishing industry—the Instruments which are being laid before us today relate to its prosperity—and to illustrate what an important element the smaller type of vessels constitutes in the economy of the whole industry. There is also the immense contribution to fish supplies by the herring fleets, although their returns, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, during the past three years have been tragically disappointing. How can he take such a complacent view about the position of the herring industry today?
We all know that the costs of reconversion are steadily mounting. There is a desire to build larger boats. They are more economical and better deploy their manpower. They provide, of course, better amenities for the crew. Some of the older vessels are utterly out of date in amenity standards and on that ground alone ought to be scrapped. Today's costs soar into the region of between £120,000 and £150,000 whereas, before the war, one could get a tolerable vessel of the same kind for about a quarter of that sum.
To be fair, the Government have realised this and have proposed to raise the maximum grant from £30,000 to £37,500 for trawlers, and a corresponding sum for herring drifters. The industry contends that this is not enough. It is reinforced by the opinion of the white fish authority, which suggests raising the figure to £40,000. Even then, it leaves a huge sum to be provided by the owners, and the tragedy of this is that the small man, or the small family concern, will find it almost impossible to provide the rest of the capital required, which is an enormous sum.
One quarter of £120,000, is a valuable grant, but for the small firm to provide

the rest is quite impossible these days. This means that there must be fewer small undertakings able to operate, and the industry must inevitably fall to fewer owners and into the hands of large companies, where there is a tendency for a monopolistic character of the industry. We do not think that this is a satisfactory development in an industry which prides itself on a strong competitive individualism.
In finding the necessary capital for new vessels the position is aggravated by two important factors. One is the tremendous fall in the price of scrap. In these debates a few years ago we used to say, with a great deal of reason, that the returns from scrapping three old vessels, with the grants and loans then available, would provide the capital for a new ship. Today, the price of scrap has dropped, I am told, until it would be necessary to scrap six or seven old vessels, and some say even more, to get the same return in cash.
The White Fish Authority points out what would be the effect of raising the maximum grant to £40,000, not the £37,500 on which the Government have decided. Incidentally, the Government have not yet given a reason for that discrepancy and have not explained why they disregard the views of the White Fish Authority, the statutory body set up by the Government to advise them. The White Fish Authority points out that raising the grant to £40,000 would bring the grant back to the original intention—not a rigid intention—envisaged at the beginning of a 25 per cent. grant.
I note that just on £6¾ million has been given in grants. When we compare this with the huge sums available for agriculture—of which I make no complaint, unlike my famous namesake in the House, whose views I do not follow in this matter—it shows that the Government have not been over-lavish in their generosity.
Another cause for anxiety and a source of much irritation is the amazing fluctuation in the interest rates on loans. The amount of loans granted to date is about £16¾ million. Incidentally, I find it difficult to reconcile the figures in the White Fish Authority's Report with those kindly furnished to me by the Minister in an Answer to a Question which I put to him some time ago. There


seems to be some discrepancy somewhere. It may be that we have confused our dates.
These loans have been operated at no fewer than eighteen different rates of interest since 1953. If hon. Members look at Appendix VI of the Report of the White Fish Authority they will find that in August, 1953, the rate of interest was 4½ per cent.; in October of the same year, 4¼ per cent.; in June, 1954, 4 per cent. In 1955, the figure rose to 4¼ per cent. and in July, 1955, to 4½ per cent. The rates of interest rose and rose until we reached the catastrophic result in 1957 of a rate of interest no less than 6¼ per cent., since when it has dropped a little.
This puts the owner and the contemplating buyer of a new vessel in a most invidious and difficult position. He contracts to build a vessel to a certain price at a certain rate of interest, but before he has proceeded very far he finds that, through circumstances over which he has no control—Treasury policy, Government financial policy, or whatever it may be—the rates of interest have increased alarmingly and he is saddled with a new rate of interest, which he had not contemplated, for possibly up to twenty years. That is a disability which very few undertakings can foresee and with which very few of them can cope. An outstanding example of this occurred when, owing to the financial crisis of 1957, interest rates rose to the highest ever level of 6¼ per cent., whereas in 1954 the rate had been 4 per cent.
The industry considers that this state of affairs is contrary to the spirit underlying the introduction of loans and grants and that ways and means should be provided of ensuring that owners do not have to pay interest at rates much higher than those in operation when they negotiated the loans. The industry also suggests—and this is a very constructive suggestion on its part—that they should be enabled to raise a new loan from the Authority to pay off the old loan if the interest rates subsequently fall.
When the loans scheme was started short-term rates of interest were below the Bank Rate and long-term rates were very near it. Why the change of policy? Today, the rates are higher than the Bank Rate. Is it because the rehabilitation of the near and middle-water fleets

has to have secondary consideration to monetary policy and the dead hand of the Treasury has to prevail? This is not what Parliament intended when it decided that the major consideration was the rehabilitation of the fleet.
Another source of irritation is the charge by the White Fish Authority of ½ per cent. over and above the Authority's borrowing rate from the Treasury. This is for administrative charges and to make a reserve for bad debts. Surely the large sums derived from the levy which is taken on all fish landed in the country should be enough to run the White Fish Authority. Why should the good borrowers be responsible for the bad borrowers? This seems to the industry, to my hon. Friends and to myself a most unfair imposition, and I hope that the Minister will bear this complaint in mind, will bear in mind the high interest rates prevailing over many years and will see what can be done about them.
I will leave the special problems of inshore fishing to steam vessels to those more competent to deal with them. I see an imposing, almost a formidable, array of Scots and Cornishmen here today, and they are much more concerned with this problem than I am, and, I am sure, much more knowledgeable about it. I have the privilege of representing in the House the Port of Lowestoft, where we have undertaken a most comprehensive scheme of reconversion. We have now the most modern fleet in the country, with only one steam vessel operating.
When I turn, as I do now, to the question of subsidies. I want to make only one general observation on the question of the steam trawler. It seemed to me a most unrewarding policy when, a few years ago, the subsidy for steam vessels was raised so as to prove a distinct disincentive, I thought, to conversion at that time, and then, last year and this year, was reduced so as to make the operation of these vessels almost wholly uneconomic. I remember saying in the debate then that if I were the owner of a steam vessel, and had a subsidy of £20 a day, the last thing I should want to do would be to convert that vessel to a diesel vessel, which received nothing like that amount of subsidy. I do not want to impinge on that topic today, however; I am just mentioning it.
In discussing the subsidy rates now proposed, I should like to say a word


about the herring industry. Everyone knows that this is one of the most difficult problems in the fishing industry today. I speak with much feeling on this topic, because Lowestoft, with Great Yarmouth, is the combined centre of the great East Anglian autumn herring fishing, the decline of which, over recent years, has been catastrophic. I see that the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) is here, and I am sure that he feels the same anxiety as I feel about this.
Time will not permit me to go into the causes of the decline, but one major factor—and I have said this in the House many times—is the indiscriminate trawling for immature herring in the lower North Sea by the Danes, Belgians. Dutch, Germans and even the Poles—and I am not sure that the Russians are not in it, too. I have been consulting practical men who have fished these waters for many years. I know that some hon. Members opposite do not agree with me entirely about this, although I think that they would go a long way with my argument.
In discussing the scientific aspect I have only to mention the name of Dr. Hodgson, former head of the Lowestoft Marine Laboratory, who supports me in thinking that it is not a question merely of millions of immature herring being taken—herring too young to breed—but a question of millions of millions. They are scooped up from the bed of the ocean to be converted not into human food, but into fish meal. The herring is a pelagic fish which is caught, when mature, on the surface of the sea by drifters using the long-reaching drift nets.
The past few seasons have been calamitous, particularly for the East Anglian herring fishing. The hon. Member spoke about the prospects for herring. May I quote from the Report of the Herring Industry Board. Referring to herring fishing, it reads:
The fishing was quite the most disappointing in all its long history. Landings totalled little more than half those of the previous year—itself an exceptionally lean one. From the viewpoint of catches, the only redeeming feature was that prices reflected the state of scarcity and enhanced unit earnings went some way towards making up for the smallness of the catches.
I quote that with reference to the Government's proposal—despite the difficulties

that the herring industry is experiencing—to retain the same standard of subsidy, and I ask them to look again at the subject, and to consider whether they cannot do something far more helpful for the industry.
If this decline proceeds we shall see fewer and fewer vessels in the business, and a once prosperous industry go further into trouble. Already, the number of vessels is the lowest on record. One result will be that with the poor return shared by the crews it will be virtually impossible to recruit the men necessary even for the small number of drifters now going to sea. There is already a tendency for driftermen to go into the trawl business, because there they get a share of the subsidies, while the men's share of the earnings of the drifters is so low as to make it absolutely essential that they should look for other employment. I urge the Government to look again at this and, if not now, at least in a few months, to bring in another scheme.
In discussing the subsidy figures for the near and middle waters, I want now to present some figures that I have collected for my own port. These are typical of many other ports engaged in near and middle-water fishing. As I have already said, I exclude inshore fishing, because those concerned in it do not present their accounts in the same form. In presenting these figures, I want the House to realise that they are compiled, audited, checked and approved by the Ministry's officials.
Before I go into details the House should know that it is agreed with Government officials that the cost of running motor vessels during the next twelve months will increase by 2·7 per cent., and that the estimated decline in earnings will be in the region of 2½ per cent.—yet the subsidy is to remain the same. The industry, in these circumstances, and justified as it is by the figures agreed with the Government, proposed a new scale. This was the scale submitted to the Ministry not so very long ago. It is proposed that for vessels of 70 ft. to 80 ft. in length the present £5 should be raised to £7 5s.; 80·90 ft. from £6 to £9 15s.; 90·100 ft. from £11 to £14; 100·110 ft. from £8 10s. to £13 10s., with other, smaller, amounts as the length of the vessel increases.
That claim, made by the industry itself, is based on actual earnings and, as I have said, those earnings are agreed by the Government. At present, all the fleets have shown a loss, and I have here some figures to illustrate how the fleets are operating at the very moment when the Government are considering these subsidies. I know that this looks a most formidable document, but I do not propose to go right through it. It shows that in 1958, on vessels 70–80 ft. long, there was an average loss of £603 on each vessel. For vessels 80–90 ft. long, the average loss was £219; 90–100 ft., £57, and 100–110 ft., an average loss of £34. Whoever prepared this sheet has very optimistically headed the column "Average Net Profit and Loss" but there was no profit at all. The Government ignore those figures, and retain the subsidy at its present level.
Another thing that the industry does not like is the fantastic allowance of only 6⅔ per cent. for depreciation. That allowance applies to vessels that go to sea every day, in all sorts of weather, all the year round. Their machinery is operating all the time, unless they are in port—and even then it is working in a moderate way. Yet depreciation on such vessels is calculated at 6⅔ per cent. The depreciation allowance on office furniture is othen much higher than that. There is no realism about such a percentage. It should be drastically reconsidered and a reasonable figure allowed. Again, in calculating subsidy, the charges for interest are not allowed at all.
This great industry deserves more consideration. It is a vital part of our economy and those in it often face great risks and hazards that are often wholly beyond human control. I urge the Government to take back these Statutory Instruments and to come back with new ones before 31st July. I can assure the Government that if they bring back a more realistic set of figures we on this side will do our utmost to facilitate their passing.

4.15 p.m.

Sir William Duthie: I join with the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) in expressing relief and gratitude for our being able to have this debate at such a reasonable hour. It is

an entirely new experience to have a debate on the fishing industry without midnight chiming. Nevertheless, as these Statutory Instruments come into effect on 1st August, we are given very little time to make up our minds about them. It means that we have either to accept them or go without.
In the main, I want to discuss white fishing and herring fishing, though, later, I want to say a few words about near and middle-water trawling. However, I hope that all those hon. Members whose constituents are engaged in near and middle-water trawling will deal in detail with the difficulties that confront those localities, because the presentation of these Schemes and the Order gives us the best opportunity we have had for a considerable time to debate the industry.
One consideration that is in the minds of everyone concerned with the industry at present is when we may expect the report of the Fleck Committee. On 15th June, 1957, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—now my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—informed us that the Committee was to be set up. I remember that when, in the subsequent month the prototypes of these present Statutory Instruments were discussed, we were asked to pass them because the Fleck Committee was being brought into being to survey all facets of the industry.
That was two years ago. A year ago we asked for an interim report from the Committee so that we might know just how things were shaping, and what warranty, if any, there was for the Statutory Instruments which were then before the House. Another year has passed. Some vital changes are now appearing in the subsidy structure, and again I feel that in the absence of the Fleck Committee's report there is far too much groping in the dark without any real warranty for the changes that we are asked to agree.
I have had consultations with the Inshore White Fish Producers' Association of Scotland, which looks after the interests of the greater part of the inshore fishing. It deals with 420 to 430 vessels, which have about 2,500 fishermen in their crews. The committee of this organisation feels, as I do, that we are now being a little precipitate in making


any change whatsoever in these subsidies. It is true that there is a standstill on the subsidies applicable to vessels under 70 ft. A perfectly good case can be made out for very greatly increasing subsidies up to Is. per stone and where, as in vessels over 70 ft., there is a reduction from £6 10s. to £5 per day, there should be a standstill.
I now ask hon. Members to consider the earnings for last year in the inshore white fishing industry. These figures come from the Scottish Office. They are not manufactured by any association and, presumably, there is no bias about them. In vessels under 40 ft. the average wage was £9 4s. 9d. a week. In vessels from 40 ft. to 70 ft. the average wage was £12 18s. per week. In vessels from 70 to 80 ft. the average wage was approximately £16 per week. The average skilled worker's wage on shore is £13 5s. 5d., but it must be borne in mind that the seine net fisherman works 80 hours per week, which is almost twice the number of hours worked by skilled men ashore
Details of other costs make very illuminating reading. Running and gear expenses are up. Net profits are more or less constant. The profit coming from these inshore and herring vessels is not a business proposition to the owners, in view of sundry considerations mentioned by the hon. Member for Lowestoft, such as depreciation.
There is a reduction in the subsidy to be granted to vessels over 70 ft. The contention is that such a vessel may be trawling instead of seine netting and, in consequence, the seine netter must be put on all fours with the trawler of the same size. Surely a little supervision can get over that difficulty. If a ship has not a gallows, she cannot trawl with an otter trawl. There is a certain amount of honesty among fishermen but, even though the master does not declare that he is using a trawl, by an inspection of the ship that fact could easily be ascertained. That excuse is not a very good one.
In computing the earnings of inshore fishermen it is curious that, in arriving at the figures whereby the subsidies are reduced, loan interest is not permitted as a costing item. It should be. The Inshore White Fish Producers' Association is today accepting these figures under protest, with the hope—it is a hope that has been somewhat deferred, and the heart

of the industry is becoming a little sick—that a certain amount of equity will be achieved when the Fleck Committee's report is published and applied.
What is the position of the White Fish Authority? What about the White Fish Authority's small ports scheme, which seemed an excellent measure? How many recommendations has the White Fish Authority made in the last twelve months and how many of them have been improved? There is a feeling throughout the whole industry that the position of the White Fish Authority has been completely usurped by the Treasury. There is a very considerable amount of evidence to support that.
The herring industry is declining. There are fewer vessels and fewer fishermen. That is not to be wondered at, because there is the lure of the seine net, where there is a weekly settlement and where the average earnings are greater. We are allowing a certain amount of rot to creep into the industry. We, as a nation of fishermen—and, I submit, the Government—have ourselves to blame.
I hope that I am in order in mentioning some of the considerations which make the herring industry such an object of pity. There was an article in the Scotsman yesterday entitled, "Disappearance of the Herring". I commend that article to all those who are interested in the fishing industry. It is one of the best informed documents that I have ever read on the disappearance of the herring. It marshals facts in a very telling way. It underlines in no uncertain way how little we know about the herring industry and the habits of the herring. It is demonstrated in the article, as one already knew—and here I must join issue with the hon. Member for Lowestoft—that our own scientific opinion in this country is quite at variance.
In Lowestoft, it is submitted that the causes are man-made. In Torry, near Aberdeen, the Research Department says that it is the result of natural causes. Since I entered the House of Commons I have in my own way endeavoured to preach that natural causes are the true reason—namely, the plankton-bearing ocean currents and the like. We do not know, and we are playing at research. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the large catches


of herring on the West Coast last winter, which saved Scottish fishermen from ruin after the dreadful time in East Anglia. Obviously, there was plenty of plankton there for the herring, which all goes towards supporting the contention that ocean currents are changing in so far as the eastern and western ports are concerned.
Another matter of great interest and importance to herring fishermen is the increase of continental fleets. The Scotsman of 23rd June carried a very well-informed article entitled, "Expansion of Soviet Fisheries". I commend that article also to everyone interested in the fishing industry. The manner in which the Russians are developing their fishing industry is well worthy of note. By 1965, they will probably be the largest fishing nation in the world. They are setting about it in the way in which we should. They send their vessels out in units of ten or twelve drifters or trawlers with a depot ship, and in every instance a research vessel accompanies the group. They are alive to all phenomena and all conditions. They learn on the spot anything which is to be learned.
I strongly commend that to the Government, because, in this competitive world, without research in the fishing industry we shall not get anywhere. We must discard many of our present-day methods. We must find new gear and new methods of fishing. It is very important that we should find new fishing grounds, because these continental fleets are finding fish. They are going after white fish and herring as well and they are finding the fish, whether it is 200 miles west of the Hebrides or 100 miles north of the Faroes. They are finding fish, and it is up to us to do the same.
The trawl is no doubt wreaking a good deal of havoc in the North Sea, but there are natural forces perhaps just as destructive as the trawl in the North Sea. I refer to dog fish and all the other creatures which prey upon the herring.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Lowestoft said about interest rates. In many instances interest rates are far too heavy a drag upon the industry. As a businessman, I think that ½ per cent. surcharge, ¼ per cent. for administrative costs and ¼ per cent. for bad debts, is entirely iniquitous. The industry should not be

asked to bear that additional charge. Interest rates should be geared entirely to the Bank Rate.
With regard to coal burners, I have every sympathy with those ports now meeting the added menace of reduced subsidies. I know how difficult it has become to replace these vessels. It is all very well to speak about a four-year or six-year plan for the replacement of vessels, but we must take conditions as they come to us year after year. We must not overlook, for example, the price of scrap or the rising cost of vessels. We may raise the ceiling of the original grant, but the balance of 75 per cent. of the cost has to be met out of cash reserves or from earnings. Until earnings are sufficient to pay a reasonable yield and to allow the building up of reserves, it is fatuous to engage in the industry. This applies equally with small vessels as with big ones.
The fishing fleets are a national asset, as essential in peace as in war. That has been demonstrated conclusively in two wars in my lifetime. For safety's sake, we require the strongest possible fishing fleet. It is a cheap form of insurance for national survival. It is wrong that we should have subsidy changes without the Fleck report to warrant changes. If, tonight, there is a Division on these Statutory Instruments I must vote for them, because I cannot see the fishermen whom I represent going without subsidy as from 1st August. I appeal, however, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, even at this eleventh hour, to reconsider what he is doing now and let us have a standstill all round.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I listened with interest to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Banff (Sir W. Duthie). It is wrong of the Government to tell the House that there is nothing they can do about the fishing industry until the Fleck Committee has presented its report while, at the same time, they introduce today's Statutory Instruments, which make substantial cuts in the subsidies paid to the fishing industry.
It is just a little glib of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in introducing the Schemes, to say that all that the cut amounts to is 7 per cent. Let me remind him that 6⅔ per cent. represents the amount of depreciation on the


boat itself. Therefore, when we talk of a cut of 7 per cent. in the subsidy for the fishing industry, we are talking about a substantial sum. It certainly might appear to be very little if we were discussing agriculture.
I was more than a little interested this afternoon to hear the various theories concerning the disappearance of the herring from the fishing waters. In the old days, there used to be a simple Answer, which I have recalled to the House on a previous occasion. Shortly before the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) became Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, he thought that the whole responsibility for the disappearance of the herring from the fishing waters was the return of a Labour Government. Apparently, nobody has yet told the herring that we have a Tory Government, because the fish have never come back.
We now hear theories postulated about the reason for the disappearance of the herring. All I can hope is that somebody will find the answer. I support, however, the theory put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) rather than the theory that comes from Northern Scotland. My view is that the trawling is doing considerable harm. Indeed, this raking of the sea-bed is bound to have an effect in following years.
The Joint Under-Secretary argued that boats were not being scrapped as quickly as in the past and he said that the 1958 figures proved this. What he apparently did not take into account, however, was that in 1957 the interest rates on money to buy the boats went up to the highest figure ever. It becomes rather uneconomic if those who have to build new trawlers of moderate size costing £120,000–£140,000 are then faced with interest charges of 6¼ per cent. compared with 4 per cent. That, undoubtedly, has had an effect on owners who were considering providing new vessels. The Government will not encourage them if they put up the interest rate, reduce the subsidy and think that this will provide a solution. I know that we all want to get a solution. Therefore, I shall make one or two suggestions as to how we might more quickly modernise the fleet and get rid of the old vessels. That, I take it, is the objective that we all wish to achieve.
Unlike agriculture, which goes on receiving subsidies of about £240–£260 million a year, the fishing industry receives only £2 million. Those of us who are interested in the fishing industry must face the day when even these subsidies cease altogether. There may be many methods of reaching that position. Agriculture, apparently, will go on for ever receiving these tremendous sums from the Government. The cotton industry is to receive something like £30 million. Indeed, I notice from today's Press that the cotton industry is to have three systems of payment: one for capacity that is being taken out of industry, the second for industry that is scrapped, and the third for those who cut down the number of machines. Indeed, so generous are the Government concerning cotton that they are prepared also to give a bonus of 5 per cent. to those who send in their applications for the cash by 31st August.
When we contrast that kind of treatment with what is being meted out to the fishing industry, I cannot understand why hon. Members accept it with such equanimity. One of the reasons—let us face it—may be that frequently the industry has not made up its mind exactly which way it wants to go. Indeed, as each year comes round, it tries always to extemporise to meet the situation when it might much better spend its time thinking out what it wants to do and what size its fleet should be.
Three years ago, in a similar debate, I made the suggestion that if there was to be a real interest in fishing and if it was to be successful, the industry should be planning, together with the Government, what its future rôle should be and that we should go in for a considerable number of distant-water trawlers, middle-and near-water trawlers and seine netters, and that we should decide how many were required to meet our needs. Until we do that and make up our minds where we want to go, we will be in these difficulties year after year.
It is also in the fishing industry that one finds other difficulties. One port will want greater subsidies for coal and for a longer period. Indeed, that is the position facing Aberdeen today. Everybody will agree that it is the one port where any substantial cut in coal subsidies would have a tremendous effect. At other


ports where owners have modernised, the attitude is that that is no concern of theirs and that they would much rather have greater grants for rebuilding and that the one thing which they do not want is a subsidy for scrapping, since they have scrapped all their old boats and do not think that one port ought to get what they did not get in years gone by. They will agree to a policy of subsidies for scrapping only if the Government make it retrospective. That is about the only way which would appeal to them.
Then we have the other suggestion from the British Trawl Owners' Federation itself, which is that the maximum should be raised to £40,000 rather than £30,000. Here the Government behaved in a most niggardly way. Instead of agreeing to increase the maximum to £40,000, they made their niggardly proposal to increase it to £37,500. Why are right hon. Gentlemen so mean in such a small thing as this? The Government could have created a great deal of good will by acceding to this demand for a maximum of £40,000—and there is a very good case for removing the ceiling altogether.
The fleets fishing from Granton and Leith, the ports I represent, have their own special difficulties, as has been admitted by the Scottish Office. I do not want to go over the figures of earnings, profits and losses, which are well known to and admitted by the Scottish Office. Until 1956, we always had special subsidies to meet the special difficulties of Granton and Newhaven, where we had to box fish because there were no quayside facilities for selling. That added considerably to the costs of trawler owners at those ports.
That was admitted by the Scottish Office until 1956, when that subsidy was wiped out. Trawler owners from those ports now have this very heavy additional cost which is not met by any other port and which is one more of the burdens which they have to carry. I do not know whether the Government are now suggesting that the trawler owners should clear out of these ports, but that appears to be the case, and the Government had better make a statement quickly about what they want those ports to do in the future.
We feel that the subsidies should be considerably altered and that there should be quicker replacement of vessels. We have certain schemes and have suggested to the Government that where the owners are receiving subsidies for old vessels, even a yearly subsidy might be paid in the form of a lump sum, which would help in the building of new vessels. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft said that under existing conditions scrapping six trawlers would pay for the building of one new trawler, but I think that to scrap six old trawlers meets the laying out of the 15 per cent. down payment for the new trawler.
I was interested in the suggestion about interest payments. I raised this matter very forcefully three years ago and suggested to the Government that not only should the interest rate be fixed on the day of order, but that the Government might consider special terms for meeting the needs of those who were to build. I suggested that the period for depreciation allowance should be cut from fifteen to ten years. All these suggestions have been made and one can only hope that the Fleck Committee will deal with them. Under the circumstances, I would have expected that the Government would have done the industry the courtesy of waiting to see what the Fleck Committee said before making any changes.
A considerable amount of money is spent on new vessels. It has been suggested on other occasions that standard vessels might be built. Perhaps it is along those lines that there will be a considerable cut in costs. In other countries standard vessels are built. A firm in San Diego, California, issues a brochure offering vessels of 44, 60 and 115 ft. One knows the type of vessel and the price which one will have to pay and the cost of any modifications one wants. A continental firm is building trawlers of 120 ft. and one can tell the price and other details of such a vessel well in advance. It is registered in the higher class of the Maritime Register of Russia, so that the firm is getting a considerable number of orders there.
Two things come about with the construction of standard vessels. First, they meet the needs of the industry at a price which should be considerably less than the placing of single orders. Secondly,


with so many complaints about small shipbuilding yards going out of production, the construction of standard vessels provides one method of putting them back into production.
It is along those lines that we will get a solution. We will never get a solution merely by devoting two or three hours once a year to a discussion of whether the subsidy should go up or down. This is a great industry calling for much thought. The Government should indicate whether they are prepared to follow some of the suggestions made this afternoon. I appeal to the Government to consider the subsidies, to consider making a tonnage payment for scrap, as they have done for the cotton industry, to consider interest charges and certainly to consider the proposal that the White Fish Authority might study the building of vessels of a standard type.
If the Government can be persuaded to go along that road, I think that they will be taking the road to a fairly prosperous, economical and efficient industry, which would provide not only a good supply at reasonable prices for consumers, but a respectable living for those engaged in it.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Richard Stanley: Listening to the speeches which we have heard so far, it certainly seems that the Scottish difficulties are very nearly the same as the English difficulties. We have had an almost all-Scottish attack, and the only other Englishman who has spoken seemed to lead that attack. However, it is a great change for us to debate this subject at a sensible hour of the afternoon. It is also new that we should hear the Scottish case first, and I hope that the English case will be answered by my right hon. Friend, because it often happens that the Scottish case is answered by the Joint Under-Secretary, speaking only for Scotland.

Lord John Hope: I inserted a few paragraphs in my speech in connection with peculiarly Scottish difficulties, but when my hon. Friend reads HANSARD I think that he will find that the bulk of my speech dealt with the position in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Stanley: I listened with great interest, but I think that my noble Friend

will find that "Scotland" came into his speech much more than "England".
One can easily see why the fishing industry should come under the same Ministry as agriculture does. It is obvious that each area has its own special difficulties. We all have roughly the same outlook, but it is probably true that every port has its own difficulties. It needs no apology from any of us if we mention our own cases. It seems that everyone is asking for an extra subsidy of some sort or another and I have heard rumours—I do not know if they are true—that even the distant-water vessel owners will come cap in hand to the Treasury or to my right hon. Friend next year to ask for help. It will certainly be a change after what they said when the White Fish Authority was set up.
I want to say a few words about the difficulties of Fleetwood, the port which I have the pleasure to represent. In wartime, it was an exceptionally prosperous port, for all the Hull and Grimsby trawlers discharged their fish there because it was on the west coast. Now. obviously, the vessels go back to their own ports. If they had to stay at Fleetwood they would have to sail very much greater distances to get to the fishing grounds. The Fleetwood trawlers always have about two more sailing days than the trawlers which fish from Hull and Grimsby.
To illustrate the point, this winter 60 per cent. of the vessels fishing off Iceland, which, as everyone knows, was difficult, were from Fleetwood. One knows the difficulties with regard to Iceland, and we are only sorry that so far we have not been able to come to an agreement with Iceland, although, obviously, the Government are doing all they can.
Here I should like to say how very grateful all the crews and skippers are to the Navy for the wonderful job which it has done. The Navy has co-operated very well, but it is an extremely difficult position. The Navy tries to ask the skippers where they would like to fish, but those of us who know anything about this matter know how very independent-minded skippers are. They all have different ideas. Therefore, a lot can be said for the Navy not having run into a head-on clash.
Fleetwood, practically more than any other port, has carried out the conversion from coal to diesel. In 1954, there were 90 coal-burning vessels and only 13 diesel vessels, whereas now there are 24 coal-burning vessels and 49 diesel vessels. It therefore shows that the trawler owners are trying to take advantage of the Government scheme. But by doing that there are fewer fishermen employed in the port. Therefore, the industry is suffering from unemployment. About 200 men are unemployed, which is about half the unemployment for the town, so one can see that by carrying out what the Government wanted them to do the fishermen have suffered. I therefore think that the Government will have to consider the whole subsidy question again, to see how they can help these people.
There are many reasons for asking why people did not speak up when the scheme was first mooted, but a lot of changes have taken place since, particularly in connection with Iceland. Even though the industry has new vessels, the catch is right down. For instance, in the first six months of 1959, compared with the first six months of 1958, the value of the catch was down by £250,000, which, out of a total of £2½ million, is very serious. This was mostly due to the trouble with Iceland, but it was also due to the fact that fewer vessels were operating.
Hon. Members have spoken about accountancy. I do not trust myself with figures. I think that anyone can make them mean what he likes, and I find myself at a loss with them. Possibly, the Ministry's accounting is as bad as mine. I should like to refer to what I have discovered from a company which has built five vessels in the last five years. According to the Government's calculations, this company should make a profit of £12 every day. In fact, they make a loss of about £13. The reason for this discrepancy, as has been said, is that the Government, in working out the figures, paid no attention to the interest on borrowed money, which would appear to be an extraordinary thing to leave out.
The other point concerns depreciation rates. In the old days, coal-burning vessels lasted for a very long time, but I gather that the owners and people who

work in the diesel trawlers are worried that these vessels will not last nearly so long. They feel that if they can write off their vessels in the first ten years, hoping that the vessels will last fifteen years, for five years they hope that they will run at a profit. As the owner of these trawlers told me, depreciation should go up from 6⅔ per cent. to 10 per cent., but it is not much good allowing for depreciation if there are not profits to write it off against.
I know that the picture which I have painted about Fleetwood seems to be rather gloomy, but it is genuinely true. During January and February this year we had probably the worst storms that have occurred at sea for a very long time. Many trawlers which were in the habit of fishing for 21 days could fish for only one day, or possibly two days. The crews had a terrible time at sea, and when the trawlers came back to port there was no profit for anyone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir W. Dutbie) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) spoke about the question of research to discover what has happened to the fish. We have heard a little about how it is not possible to find herring. Whether the Socialist Government were responsible for this, I do not know, but this year—and I hope it is not a sign that a Socialist Government will return to power—the fishermen cannot find hake, and, for a port which relies on hake as its chief catch, this is a serious matter. I hope that the Government will invest more money in research.
As has been said many times, the Russians are building a large fishing fleet. They are not doing this for fun, but because they know that they are in a position to catch fish. I cannot help feeling that their research is further advanced than ours. I do not know how far our research has gone, but I do not think that it has gone nearly far enough. If we devote more time and energy to research, surely we will be able to find new grounds to fish.
Some ports may be doing all right at present, but, as I say, Fleetwood is not doing well. It is having a bad time this year. Probably my right hon. Friend will not have a chance on this occasion to do much about it, but I hope that in the near future he will consider the whole position to see whether he cannot give a


subsidy to help this industry. It is no good letting it get into a bad way and then, as with a patient, having to perform a major operation. If the industry receives a reasonable injection now, I am certain that it will be able to carry on in a right and prosperous manner.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Notwithstanding some of the partisan observations of the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley), I submit that this is a matter of national importance which should not be treated in a party way. I would not dream of attempting to import party politics into a national matter of this sort. I deprecate the observations made by the hon. Gentleman along those lines.

Mr. Stanley: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman mention one thing that I said about party politics?

Mr. Hughes: I pass from that.
The Minister said that one of the aims of these Statutory Instruments is to help the fishing industry and to accelerate the rate of transfer from coal-burning ships to oil-burning ships. I agree that that is very desirable, but I differ with him about the rate at which it should be done. The attempt to accelerate the rate is prejudicial to the industry and to all concerned.
The reason these Statutory Instruments are drafted in this way appears to me to be because they are drafted without due consultation with the practical people concerned in the industry. Such consultation is essential, and it is obviously lacking here.
I have had the advantage of consultation with the relevant owners' organisations and the relevant trade unions, and they, masters and men alike, support me in opposition to these schemes. The Fisheries Section of the Transport and General Workers Union has had correspondence on this matter with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and also with the Secretary of State for Scotland. In this correspondence the union says:
These schemes are singularly inopportune and ill-timed, coming as they do when the industry is faced with the threat of exclusion from the prolific Faroes "—
this was written on 17th July, 1958, before the Faroes Agreement—

and Icelandic fishing grounds, traditionally fished by British vessels for many decades.
The letter goes on:
It will be argued that these may have the desirable effect of expediting the scrapping of obsolete coal-fired vessels and the subsequent replacement by modern diesel and diesel-electric vessels. This may be conceded as a long-term view, but in those ports where the preponderance of the fleet are still aged, e.g., Aberdeen, Granton, Milford Haven, etc., the net result may be to enforce the laying up of vessels with the consequent heavy redundancy amongst crews. In strict economic terms the cuts will probably represent a drop in revenue of between £1,200 and £1,500 per annum, making all the difference between running at a loss and showing a profit, or at worst breaking even.
That is the view of the Transport and General Workers Union and it is also the view of the trawler owners' association in Aberdeen.
I have also had the advantage of consultation with experts with practical knowledge from such important ports as Aberdeen, Fleetwood, Granton, Grimsby, Hull, Leith, Milford Haven and North Shields. They include those of inshore, near and middle-water fishing and, as far as personnel in the industry is concerned, they include the whole industry—the builders and owners of ships, the seafarers who catch the fish as well as the merchants, transporters and fish market porters, all of whom make their contribution in money and kind to this great industry.
These Statutory Instruments fail to solve the relevant problems for owners, workers and consumers, and it is obvious from what has already been said that the majority of hon. Members who have so far spoken are against these schemes.
I shall address myself to three aspects of the schemes as far as Aberdeen is concerned—(1) subsidies, (2) interest rates, and (3) grants for fishing vessels and engines. The new White Fish Subsidy Scheme, which it is now proposed should operate from 31st July this year to 31st July next year, revokes the earlier scheme and alters for the worse the subsidies in respect of coal-burning and oil-burning vessels while the rate for diesel-engined vessels remains the same.
The reason for this adverse change is apparently to accelerate the rate at which ships are changed from coal- and oil-burning to diesel-engined ships. Is this a sound policy? In my submission,


the answer is twofold. It is a sound policy to change from coal burners to oil burners, but it is not sound policy to rush it with a penalty attached. I shall give reasons for that twofold answer.
This Statutory Instrument seeks to speed up the change by penalising the trawler owners and through them the crews, the merchants, the porters and the consumers. The penalty imposed is unfair and unjustified. It is a reduction in the subsidy to the coal- and oil-burning trawlers which cannot fail to be reflected in the conditions of the workers in the industry, in the price to the consumers and in the profits to the owners.
I shall give figures—of which I have plenty here, but I shall not trouble the House with many of them—to show why the change is good if gradual and why it is bad if it is precipitate. The figures, which I have, show the profits and losses of the trawlers in each class. The coal burners made losses while the oil burners made profits. This in itself is, in my submission, a sufficient penalty on the fishing industry without any reduction in the subsidy.
The Scottish Home Department's Consolidation of Profit and Loss Accounts for 1959 show the position for each type of vessel. They are compared with estimates for 1959–60. I regret to trouble the House with figures and I shall give as few as possible. For each coal-burning trawler there was a loss in 1958 of £1,955 and there is an estimated loss of £4,122 in 1959–60. On the other hand, if we look at the oil-fired trawlers we find that in 1958 there was a profit for each such trawler of £2,628 and for 1959–60 there is an estimated profit of £1,235. For each motor vessel there was a profit of £2,620 in 1958 and for 1959–60 there is an estimated profit of £1,267.
For Aberdeen alone, the chartered accountant's estimates for 1959–60 are as follows. For coal-fired vessels a loss of £4,812; for oil-fired vessels a profit of £1,107, and for motor vessels a profit of £378. In all these cases the subsidies were included. There is, therefore, no doubt that the change from coal to oil is a good thing for the industry. The loss by coal-burning vessels is a bad thing—a sufficient penalty in itself without reducing the subsidy.
The arguments against the reduction of the subsidy for coal-burning vessels

are, therefore, (1) that those vessels are a loss in themselves, (2) that the reduction in subsidy adds to the loss, and (3) that this tends to drive them off the seas in a precipitate way which is bad for the industry, the owners, the crews, the merchants, the consumers and all concerned.
In addition, there are social and economic arguments against doing it in a precipitate way. Those arguments mainly relate to the sudden transfer of labour without warning, to the turnover of skilled labour to man oil-burners, to the loss of personnel risked thereby, to the loss of organisational balance!, to the resulting peril to established business connections and to the consequential damage to ancillary trades such as repair shops and supply stores. In my submission, if these convulsions in the; industry bring the danger of loss of trade in a particular port, such loss will not be easily or quickly recovered It may never be recovered and it may be a permanent loss to that port,
I should add that in Aberdeen, without this new penalty, the scrapping of old ships, as the Joint Under-Secretary of State has admitted, and the building of new ships has proceeded steadily and well. The following are a few of the figures. The number of vessels scrapped in 1956 was 26; in 1957, 12; in 1958, 10; in 1959, up to July, 5—say 10 for the year; making a total in four years of 58 scrapped, an annual average of 14½ vessels scrapped. On the other hand, the numbers of vessels built in Aberdeen were for the same years: in 1956, 3; in 1957, 15; in 1958, 15; in 1959, up to July, 6—say 12 for the year; making a total in four years of 39 or an average of 9¾ vessels built.
Add to that this observation, that these newly-built ships are obviously better, modern ships, catch more fish, and are more profitable to all concerned; so that even though the new ships built were slightly fewer than the ships scrapped—very slightly, the difference is very slight—the quality of the new ships was much better and the catches were bigger and the profits were bigger, than in the old ships.
To this I should add that on 1st July this year in Aberdeen 17 vessels were tied up and stripped of their fishing gear and will almost certainly be scrapped by


the end of this year. In addition, there are from 15 to 20 more in Aberdeen which will probably be scrapped by the end of this year.
Turning to the other side of this marine picture of Aberdeen, a survey of owners' building programmes at 1st July indicates that in 1959, 21 new vessels will commence fishing; in 1960, 15 definite new vessels and 6 or 7 possibles will come into service; in 1961 2 definite new vessels and 2 more possibles will come into service. So this new penalty is neither necessary nor desirable in Aberdeen—and I am speaking only for Aberdeen—and it will damage the industry rather than improve it.
My argument against penalising the fishing industry and in favour of maintaining the subsidy at its present rate or even of increasing the subsidy for coal-burning and oil-burning trawlers is supported by the White Fish Authority's Report for the year ended 31st March, 1959, which, of the coal-burning vessels, said:
The need to keep them fishing to maintain supplies will diminish as new trawlers and seiners come into service, and in the Authority's view, the subsidy support now given to them should gradually be brought into line with that given to motor trawlers generally. A step in this direction was taken in 1958. The adjustment must be gradual "—
and that is my argument: the adjustment must be gradual—
to avoid a sharp decline in fish supplies and to lessen the impact on employment.

Lord John Hope: That has nothing to do with coal burners. The hon. and learned Gentleman was telling the House that the Authority's Report backed him in his argument about coal burners, but that is a quite different point.

Mr. Hughes: There is the Report, which speaks for itself.

Lord John Hope: Exactly. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not read it.

Mr. Hughes: It speaks not only for itself but it speaks for me, and it speaks for Aberdeen, and I agree with it.
I add that that advice is sound advice, the advice which I quoted. We still want, to quote the Report, to "keep them fishing" until they are fully replaced; we still need "to maintain supplies" of fish for the consumers; we

still want "to avoid a sharp decline in fish supplies"; we still want "to lessen the impact on employment." We still want to avoid unemployment in the fishing industry by what the union calls the ill-advised and precipitate reduction of subsidy.
I should like to say a word about interest rates. The artificial rates now inflicted on the fishing industry do it a great injustice. This is a grave and prejudicial feature. It has become the practice to surcharge Treasury interest rates by an additional ½ per cent. This is iniquitous, and penalises the industry. It is also thoroughly unsound, because one-half of that half goes to meet the administrative expenses of the grant and loan scheme which should be borne by the Treasury, and the other half is a provision against bad debts for which the ship itself is security. So the White Fish Authority is doubly secured, which is quite unnecessary.
I have an example here with many figures which I had intended to cite to the House, but having regard to the amount of time I have occupied so far I shall not trouble the House with the figures.
However, I want to say a few words about the Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines (Amendment) Scheme, 1959. This is laid under the two Acts of 1953 and 1957, which provide for grants to persons engaged or proposing to become engaged in the acquisition of new fishing vessels and engines. The present scheme is designed to increase the grant limits from £30,000 to £37,500. My objection to this is based on the fact that it is not enough. This point has been made by earlier speakers, and I fully support them. It is not enough bearing in mind the present costs and conditions in the shipbuilding world.
In Aberdeen most new vessels are from 100 ft. to 115 ft. in registered length, and cost up to £120,000. This uplifting of the ceiling from £30,000 to £37,500 is, therefore, useless to Aberdeen.
The Aberdeen Fishing Vessels Owners' Association has claimed ever since 1955 that 25 per cent. grant is insufficient at current building costs. It should be increased to at least 33⅓ per cent. with no ceiling. Without that there is little or no incentive to build new ships.
Letters to the White Fish Authority have been written from Aberdeen on 16th March, 1955—as far back as that—on 23rd August, 1957, and 4th March, 1959, from experts who know the needs of the situation. One letter, dated 23rd August, 1957, says:
My Directors consider it necessary that with immediate effect the 25 per cent. grant should have no ceiling and that it should relate to total building costs. Further they consider that there is a good case for the substitution of 33⅓ per cent. for 25 per cent. and your knowledge of the rise in building costs will permit you to agree with this request.
Alas, it is a sad thing that the Authority's knowledge of building costs was so negligible that it did not induce it to agree to that request. It should know how much it costs now to build new ships and it should know that this 25 per cent. is completely out of tune with present-day costs.
Since that letter was written the financial position due to high costs and interest rates has become more acute. The maintenance and extension of the fishing industry in Aberdeen with its ancillaries affects the fortunes of at least 10,000 workers. It also affects the safety of the nation in war, because the men who devote their lives to fishing in time of peace and the ships which are fishing vessels in time of peace are the men and ships that sail to defend this country in time of war.
We want to look at this not in a narrow way as representing the industry, the workers, consumers or owners, but in a way as representing the interests of the nation at large. These Statutory Instruments should be taken back and reconsidered by the Ministry. There is yet time to do it. We are only in the middle of July, and the present Schemes will not expire until the end of July. Therefore, there is ample opportunity to draft new and better plans, and I strongly exhort the Minister to do so.

5.20 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: As I sat listening to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), I realised the fascinating fact that I could deliver his speech practically word for word, because he and I, of course, have been provided with exactly the same brief. I recognised large passages in his speech, and I shall try not to go

over the same ground, if I can possibly avoid it, and I shall use my own words, although they may not be so precise as the brief which has been supplied to us.
When the hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Annual Report speaks for him, I think that he is not very accurately interpreting the bulk of the Report, and that he did not pay due tribute to the very steady work which is going on now in Aberdeen, the first port in Scotland, to try to modernise the fishing fleet. I realise that this debate is taking place in very great difficulties, because we are all awaiting the Fleck Committee's report. I am one of those who are not too anxious to see the work of this Committee finished too soon, firstly because, speaking for the industry as a whole, I think it has a very difficult job that must be throughly done, and, so far as Aberdeen is concerned, the longer the Committee takes to report the better the position Aberdeen will be in to get favourable treatment when the Committee's report comes before the Government of the day.
A few years ago, it could possibly have been said that Aberdeen was an uneconomic port. We have a very large number of coal-burning vessels still, and we still have 112 that are over thirty years old. On the other hand, we are now steadily working towards modernising the fleet, and we have had fifty-six approvals for grants under the White Fish Authority scheme. We have, in fact, as a port at present the largest number of new trawlers built, building or on order, so that progress is really being made.
I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman and also with the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) that it is unfortunate that the increased grants, which have been revised from £17 million to £19 million, have not been raised still further. I say that because I realise that it is the White Fish Authority itself which has asked for a higher ceiling. If there were the higher ceiling of £40,000, for which the Authority has asked, it would be equivalent to 25 per cent., which was the original idea when the scheme came into operation in 1953. I have very much sympathy with all those in the industry who put forward the plea that in this particular case, surely the Treasury should not be guided only by economic


considerations, but by the principle of the direct subsidy as is applied in agriculture. When we apply the two together—agriculture and fishing—it is obvious that the fishing industry has much more difficult problems to contend with.
As far as Aberdeen is concerned, I can sympathise with the view that perhaps too few old boats have been scrapped in the last few years, and the figures show that quite clearly. On the other hand, it requires the scrapping of six old boats to raise sufficient to put down the 15 per cent. required for the building of a new one. If the scrapping of old boats is too slow, it is perfectly obvious that it will be more difficult to gel the replacement as quickly as one would want. At the same time, we are still in a period in which the order books are full and when the construction of new boats is very much quicker and takes much less time than it did soon after the war. The fact is that we must try to get the right balance between the number of steam vessels that are scrapped and new construction at this particular moment.
Therefore, I question whether the Government would not have been far wiser, in this period while we are waiting for the report of the Fleck Committee, to keep the subsidies exactly as they were last year, which, taking into account the figures that are agreed by the Department, still show that there would be a greater loss on every vessel. I realise the difficulty of making the judgment on what is the right balance, but of course we must realise that there are three important things which we must avoid by a too rapid scrapping of old vessels.
Firstly, we must avoid a big fall in home-produced fish supplies. Secondly, we must avoid fishermen leaving the industry, and this is particularly important to Aberdeen, where many men, unfortunately, still venture south, and it is very difficult to replace men with this skill and experience. Thirdly, at a time when Scotland is still suffering from a disparity in the employment figures as compared with England and Wales, I should have thought that it was very important to keep the right level of employment in the fishing industry. In Aberdeen, it provides one-third of the employment for all our people, if we take into account all the ancillary trades.
I think myself that one of the big considerations in the fact that the scrapping of older vessels has been slow is not so much what my colleagues representing English ports call the high rate of subsidy as the fall in the price of scrap. Now that scrap is rising in price, though slowly, I think it will have a very great effect on the rate at which these vessels are put out of commission.
In page 36 of the Report, reference is made to Aberdeen as—
by far the most important landing centre in Scotland.'
I hope that will be fully taken into account by the Fleck Committee in its final deliberations. The average catch has been higher and the average earnings have been higher, and, from the consumer's point of view, although fish is not cheap, I think it is of better quality than at any time since the end of the war. I say to all my colleagues, from whatever port they come, that if they want really prime fish, they should go to Aberdeen.

Mr. Edward Evans: And Lowestoft.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Aberdeen. We shall also have a very large increase in the amount of quick-frozen fish of very good quality.
There is an interesting experiment going on in Aberdeen at this moment, which is being supported by the Government and which is of great importance in view of the amount of fish supplies landed in the port. It is an experiment in dehydration. The other day, we had the Highland show in Aberdeen, and I was shown a small container in which was enough dehydrated fish to feed sixty people. I am told that this development is the kind of thing which will make the deep freeze out-of-date, and will bring a new industry to this country.
What I find rather disappointing about it is that while we in this country and in Scotland have developed this experiment, it is America which is first taking advantage of it commercially. I hope that the very good work which is being done by the various research bodies in the Fisheries Department will be made more widely known to industrialists and that some of these experiments will be put into commercial use for our own people.
Paragraph 13 of the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme refers to the subsidy payable as including the day of arrival in port
… and the day on which the first-hand sale of the catch commences (if that is different from the day of arrival of the vessel) …
I should like to make a plea that, wherever it is possible, arrangements should be made whereby in home ports home boats get priority. What often happens, certainly in Aberdeen, is that many of our own boats come in and get the second sale. This subsidy, given to help our own fishermen in the operation of our own boats, is not having its full effect because our fishermen can take advantage only of second sales because they cannot get a berth.
The success of the subsidy scheme depends upon our securing a successful settlement of the fisheries dispute on the lines of the Faroes settlement. I realise that it is out of order to refer to that dispute in this debate and I mention it only in passing. I hope that when the Fleck Committee reports it will be seen that Aberdeen is now getting into a very much stronger position than it has been in for many years and that this applies also to the quality of the fish which it produces.
I believe and hope that the Fleck Committee will look upon Aberdeen not only as the major fishing port of Scotland but one which can produce and sell fish of the finest quality in the United Kingdom. That being so, I hope that the Government, when they examine the report, will give full consideration even to differential rates of subsidy in different parts of the country. While, of course, I am glad that the grants are increased, I feel that they do not go as far as any of us would like. But we are thankful for something to keep us going until the Fleck Committee has reported.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I hesitate to divert the attention of the House from the fascinating subject of Aberdeen but I think that we have given it a fairly good doing. I was delighted to hear that it is to have some new trawlers. A good many of them visit my constituency and some of them look extraordinarily old. I thought that I heard it said that some were 130

years old. This takes us back to a time before the Reform Bill. Wellington was in his prime. The "Rocket" was hardly running and the "Great Western" was a dream in its designer's eye. That cannot really be true.
I take the House back to inshore fishing and the centre of the world—my own constituency. We must start from the present position. The Government and the House of Commons have agreed that the fishing industry, in most of its forms, needs support and the House has decided upon the method by which it should be given. As the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) has said, and other hon. Members have also pointed out, every part of the fishing industry has its own peculiar problems. We in Shetland have a peculiar difficulty over transport, freight and marketing. We are forced to run our fish to Aberdeen, where we suffer very much from congestion on landing, or we have to pay freight to take the fish by steamer. All of us would have suggestions on how the money voted for the fishing industry could best be used, but for the purpose of this scheme the broad outline has been agreed.
I should like to look at the present position in Shetland. We have one "Zulu" boat left to us but it is only half the alleged age of the Aberdeen trawlers. On the whole, our fleet is remarkably modern and we have taken full advantage of recent grants and loans. Are the Government really so satisfied with the general position of inshore fishing that they feel able to reduce the subsidies on the big boats? Do they feel that the subsidy has finished its job which they intended by bringing the boats up to date and giving a reasonable return on boats of various sizes?
The hon. Member for Banff (Sir W. Duthie) gave some figures of wage rates. I also have been given some figures. I understand that the rates are about £9 10s. on the 40 ft. to 70 ft. boats and £12 to £13 on the bigger boats. These are not high wages for this skilled and dangerous work and the long hours. We are told that the average profit on the small boats is under £500 and on the bigger boats over £1,600. Are these figures correct? Do they conceal enormous variations? My impression is that there are enormous variations between


the earnings of different boats in all types of fishing and that average rates are misleading.
Do the figures given take into account such things as interest rates and depreciation? I am also informed that costs have gone up, in spite of the tailing-off of inflation and the comparatively stable price level recently. Rope has increased in cost in the last twelve months by 17s. a coil. Other costs have gone up too, and I am told that it is estimated that profits will fall slightly this year and that even the biggest boats will have slightly lower profit rates.
Clearly, nobody wants to subsidise the industry more than is necessary to set it on a sound footing, see it brought up to date, and enable it to give the country a supply of fish and carry out the Government's general intentions. But, in view of these figures and others given this afternoon, we must ask whether this is the moment to cut down the rate of assistance, even if it is done only in respect of the 70 ft. boats. The cuts will mean a difference of about £120 a year.
Whenever I go to Shetland I find more and more foreign fleets fishing round Shetland waters. The Russians have been fishing for years with parent ships, tankers and large and powerful modern fleets of catchers. Last time I was in Lerwick, there were five or six very good Dutch boats there. The Poles and the Germans come, and the Norwegians come for dogfish. In view of these facts, we must ask whether we are facing the realities of North Sea fishing today. I doubt very much whether we are. We seem to believe that the problem can be dealt with by doling out enough money to keep the industry ticking over, without realising that it is being rapidly passed by the enormous catchers from the Continent. I do not want to go into the question whether these are depleting stocks, but they are catching an immense amount of fish. The Russians are hauling shoals out of the North Sea.
I, too, regret that we are having this debate in advance of publication of the Fleck Committee's report. I doubt whether the report will be radical enough in its approach to the industry, but the Committee is taking great trouble over it, and we must see what it says. In the

meantime, we ought not to discourage the building of bigger boats. I do not think that the reason for reducing the subsidy on the 70 ft. boats is valid in Shetland. It is fairly easy to see whether a boat is trawling or not. None of our ten or a dozen boats trawl. We must encourage the building of bigger boats and go in for new catching methods. We must encourage research and keep a very close eye on what other nations are doing both with regard to stocks and methods of fishing.
The Government will have to settle down very soon to considering the fishing industry against the background, first of all, of Highland development as far as my part of the world is concerned, because this is one of the most hopeful industries that we have in the Highlands. Secondly, the Government must consider the industry against the background of markets. There is still on the Continent a large market for herring. The continental countries are catching this fish for themselves.
What is the real outlook? With freezing, packing and filleting, there is no doubt that more people may be willing to buy fish nowadays because it is so easy to prepare. How far can this be carried? How far is there a market for herring? How far is it worth going all out for really up-to-date mass catching fleets? If we can do this, I am sure that is where the future of the industry lies, but it depends on markets. Apart from regretting that we are discussing these changes in subsidy in advance of the Fleck Committee's report, I wish to end on the comment that we have got to take a much wider look at the future of the whole of our fishing in the north of Scotland, bearing in mind markets and catching methods.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: As an Englishman, I hesitate to intervene in this debate, which has become almost exclusively Scottish. I shall probably be even more unpopular when I come down on the side of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the question of coal-burning vessels, which is one of the main subjects of the debate this afternoon.
The Report of the White Fish Authority for 1958–59 has already been


referred to, and if we look in that Report we find that there are 814 fishing vessels over 70 ft. long in service. Of these vessels in England and Wales, 264 were built before the last war, that is, before 1939, and 102 were built before 1918. So that there are still a large number of ageing vessels in England and Wales, and this applies especially to Scotland. I believe that the figures for Scotland are: 146 built before the last war and 100 built before the First World War. Of the middle and near-water vessels, 233 are coal-burners and are thirty years old or more. All these figures are given in the Report.
I accept the view which has been expressed on both sides of the House that it is difficult to replace these vessels, particularly those operating in the smaller fleets. We have to try to keep a balance by replacing, say, three coal-burners by one oil-fired or diesel vessel. But this scheme has been in operation since 1953 and it is due to end in 1963. Why have not the coal-burners been replaced a little more quickly? I suppose the answer that we shall get is that the 1957 credit squeeze was not conducive to replacing these vessels.
On the other hand, it is true to say that coal-burners are uneconomic and that to some degree the subsidy keeps these uneconomic vessels operating. This was not what the subsidy was intended to do. The object was clearly defined as that of replacing the coal-burning fleet by 1963—in only four years' time. This replacement programme is made easier by the increase which has been given for new vessels up to 140 ft. in length.
The point has been made that the increased grant of £7,000 is not as much as that recommended by the White Fish Authority, namely, £10,000, giving a total of £40,000, which represents about 25 per cent. of the cost of a new vessel and which was the figure which was in people's minds when the scheme was first introduced in 1953. In other words, we are not carrying the scheme back to its original conception, and my right hon. Friend should give consideration to that point.
There are two other matters to which I will refer briefly. One is the depreciation allowance for trawlers of 6⅔ per

cent., which is equivalent to a life of about fifteen years. It has been suggested that that figure should be 10 per cent. per annum, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will refer to this matter when he winds up the debate, because this question of depreciation is one in which the industry has considerable support in this House, as well as the allied question of loan interest not being included when working out charges for subsidy purposes.
I should also like my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that, although I support him in the scheme, it has been shown that the profits on new diesel vessels are dropping. In the year before last the profits averaged £1,300 per vessel in the year. Last year, they were averaging only £1,000. This year building costs are increasing, fuel will probably increase in price, and the profits will drop again.
Reference has been made to the problem of a balanced fleet. Here again, we want the new diesel vessels to carry the old coal burners, and if the new vessels' profits are going to drop fast they will not carry the old and the scheme will not be as effective in replacing the old coal-burning vessels.
May I now turn to the problem of the distant water section of the industry? Hull is the country's premier fishing port and the fleet at Hull is faced with serious difficulties. For instance, there are the obsolete slipways, which can slip only 10 per cent. of the fleet and which are not being modernised by the British Transport Corporation. There is the problem of replacement costs. When talking about the middle-water vessels, a figure of £130,000 for a new vessel was quoted. In the distant-water section that figure is over £250,000 per vessel and some of the owners are thinking of factory ships where the cost goes into several millions of pounds. Then there is the increasing competition particularly from Soviet and Polish fleets with their research and factory ships, and so on.
Finally, there is the supreme problem which affects the distant-water section of the industry, that of the 12-mile limit and the threats which have been voiced of increasing this limit up to the 100 fathom line. That would have very severe repercussions on the industry. I


know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will not allow me to enlarge upon this subject, but I would say to the Minister that the problem of the limits, together with the case of replacements, may lead even the distant-water section to make requests for subsidies in the future. These people do not want subsidies. They glory in their independence, but they have got to face the economic difficulties that are looming in the future.
May I echo the words of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) and others in saying how glad I am that we are debating this important subject at a relatively early hour, but may I also say that we are very limited in what we can discuss? Thanks to the kindness of the Chair, I have been allowed to mention one or two points which do not come strictly within the ambit of the debate, but the many problems of the distant-water section cannot be discussed in this debate. I hope that the usual channels on both sides of the House will note this fact.
The fishing industry has never been made the subject of party politics, and perhaps we are suffering from that fact, because if it were the subject of party acrimony we might have more debates on these important problems. I hope that in the near future we shall have a fuller and longer debate on all the aspects of what is, after all, one of Britain's most important industries.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: Two things stand out in this debate. The first is that, apart from the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), hardly any hon. Member has had a good word to say for the subsidy scheme. The second is that even including the hon. Member for Haltemprice—and that is quite a large concession—nobody is complacent about the future of the fishing industry.
The Minister, when he replies, will have to do a good deal more than was done by the Joint Under-Secretary—although I congratulate him on his admirable and lucid exposition; his was the only speech which defended the subsidy scheme—in taking a longer-term look at the future of the industry in order to allay the fears and apprehensions in the minds of those engaged in the industry.
I do not propose to go over all the ground which has been covered this afternoon. I shall telescope my remarks, although I would just like to say this. I support wholeheartedly the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) about interest rates. I support, too, what the hon. Member for Banff (Sir W. Duthie) said about discussing all these subsidies in advance of the Fleck report. Also, I support what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said about the need for new research and new methods, and the fact that we should not be complacent about the situation.
In a few brief words, as brief as the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) but not nearly so eloquently, I propose to speak about the incidence of the new subsidy scheme on the Port of Milford Haven, which is in my constituency. It is the largest port in Wales, the only deep-water port, the main source of supply for the South Wales market, especially industrial South Wales, and that is its raison d'etre.
The background to Milford Haven is that when this Government came to power in 1951 there were about 90 trawlers fishing from the port. Today, there are 41, so the fleet has been more than halved. I do not lay all this decline at the door of the Conservative Government, because the fish have to be there, but, nevertheless, the situation has deteriorated rapidly and alarmingly, and we have now reached a position where the port could not be sustained any longer if the fleet were to deteriorate any further. That is a practical point.
The right hon. Gentleman may recollect that in the days of his predecessor, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the price of coal went up sharply, a deputation from the Port of Milford Haven went to see the Minister. Partly as a result of that, there was a change in the subsidy rates which met the interim need of the coal burners in the port, on the understanding that we would make as rapid a conversion as possible to oil-burning and diesel trawlers.
At that time practically all our ships-were coal burners. It was a serious situation for us. Today there are 16 diesel boats, 5 oil burners and 20 coal burners. Therefore, this cut in the subsidy to the


coal-burning ships is a severe blow to the port, and it affects half the fleet; but the other half of the fleet has changed. I understand the object of the change in the subsidy rates, which is to promote the speed at which the coal burners are being scrapped, but—and this is a very big "but"—I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he looks at what has been done already. In three years, as I said, half the fleet has been converted, scrapped or replaced.
That is a very big change indeed in only three years. It has been done despite the adverse circumstance of the fall in the scrap rates. It has been done despite the high interest rates which have existed at times during the tenure of office of this Government. It has been done despite the reduction in the supplies of fish, which has been going on continually because of overfishing, and which diminishes confidence.
If, as I said earlier, the fleet diminishes any more, it will not be possible to sustain the port. The fish market, the refrigeration facilities, the railway services, all that go with it, are dependent upon an economic unit being retained. The employment of about 1,000 people, and indirectly the livelihood of the town of Milford Haven, is at stake.
Now, I know that various people have said that in this port there is to be a shift away from the fishing industry, and that one day it may become one of the largest oil ports in Europe. But, from the point of view of what is foreseeable in the immediate future, the employment position is still far from satisfactory. At present, about 2,000 people are engaged in work on the construction of one oil refinery, but when that is completed, in two years' time there will be employment for only about 500. The others will have to depend again for their livelihood in the future on the fishing industry, as they have done in the past. There is no replacement for my constituency, for the Port of Milford Haven, as an employment unit, whatever may happen in the foreseeable future as regards the oil developments.
The conclusions to be drawn from this are that if the port declines any further a grave social problem will arise. That problem will inevitably be the responsi-

bility of the Government. Inevitably, it will be partly the result of the decisions which the Government are asking us to take today. This is a very heavy responsibility which they must face. If only the Government had allowed the old state of affairs to go on a little longer, in three years the situation might have changed out of all recognition, and this would have been well within the time limit of the ten years envisaged when the 1953 Act was passed. The port would then have been viable.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies to the debate, to admit that he will have another look at the subsidy rates. The Government may well be condemning the Port of Milford Haven to oblivion, and if they do that, if they stab the town in the back, I can assure them that they will hear a great deal more from myself and from other people concerned in the life of the area. It will have been a very grave and serious and dastardly thing to have done.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I think hon. Members will agree with the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) that there has been very little praise for what is contained in the various Statutory Instruments we are discussing. A great deal has been said about research, of which all hon. Members agree a lot more should be done. We should bear in mind, however, the reason why research into the fishing industry has not been accelerated to the same extent as research into agriculture. It is because in time of war the seas become dangerous and isolated, and, consequently, research has been concentrated on the land instead of on the sea. I trust that my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will pay attention to that fact and will appreciate that during peacetime there must be acceleration of research in order that we may know a great deal more about the fishing industry than we know at present.

The question of whether the herring are disappearing or not, or whether they are of some political shade, is not important. There was an increase in numbers in the time of Henry VIII, which began to disappear in the latter time of Elizabeth I. That had nothing to do with the mesh or the net or with


political philosophy. It may be that the herring wanted to get to a warm sea in order to find more food, which is a natural thing for wild life to do.

I shall concentrate my remarks on one aspect of the Statutory Instruments under consideration. I am sorry that I must criticise my right hon. Friend the Minister on this subject. I regret it because, although he may not be aware of the fact, I have a respect for him, and I am sorry that on this occasion we cannot look at the point in the same way. It is true to say that when we are discussing an Order which gives a subsidy to the fishing industry generally, we cannot move any Amendment. It is impossible to vote against an Order since, if it did not become law, that would more or less smash the fishing industry. Therefore, we are in a dilemma, and the point I wish to raise with my right hon. Friend, strangely enough, does not necessarily mean that the application of the subsidy, which I would like to see, would cost any more than lies within the Order.

I believe that a different application of the subsidy should take place. Under this Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will have noticed that "white fish" includes all fish, with the exclusion of certain specified fish. In other words, there are many pelagic fish which fall outside what I might call the herring section and which fall within the white fish industry. There are those which wriggle their way through the water and which are combined with those that flap their way through the sea. It is about the pelagic side that I want to speak this afternoon.

The subsidy included in one of the Statutory Instruments, the one for the pilchard industry, was running last year at between £14,000 and £28,000 per annum. Expressed in a percentage, that is, in a number of ways, quite a good subsidy. In other words, it represents roughly 20 per cent. of the catch. This in itself, as I see it, means that the Minister fully realises the need for such a subsidy; otherwise, it would not be included in one of the Statutory Instruments.

Secondly, the Minister could not have any objection to a variation in the way the subsidy should apply because the Fleck Committee has not yet reported. One of the major attacks in the House

this afternoon against certain alterations in the arrangements has been put in the form of the question asking why these alterations have taken place when the Fleck Committee has not reported. Therefore, of course, he could not possibly object to altering the form of subsidy simply because the Committee has not reported.

It might be argued by the Minister that to alter the subsidy in the way I wish to suggest would mean that it would be difficult to control, and the method which I am about to suggest might lead to a certain number of people taking advantage of it. This would be a very strange argument indeed, because, at the present moment about 80 per cent. of the white fish industry has the method which I have in mind. It might be argued that there is a difference because the type of vessel employed does not, by its nature, go out for quite so long. Such an argument would not be a very wise one to use because, when all is said and done, the Admiralty laid down a very long time ago the definition that an inshore fishing vessel would not have that description determined by its size but by the fact that, on its normal occasions, it did not remain at sea for more than 36 hours. Therefore, that argument against any difference would not apply.

There has been a great deal of thought about how the pilchard industry could be helped. Some years ago, we set up the White Fish Authority with the idea that it would be able to concentrate on such matters and recommend to the Minister for his consideration what it thought was best. I readily agree that the Authority recommends and advises and that it is for the Minister himself to decides whether he accepts its recommendations.

The recommendation of the White Fish Authority to the Minister was, as far as I know, backed by the Ministry of National Insurance. It was certainly backed by the fishing industry itself, and it was backed by the county fisheries committee which represented the fishing industry. At that moment, therefore, the point which I am about to put had the support of the White Fish Authority, it had the support, as far as I know, of the Ministry of National Insurance, it had the support of the fishing industry and it had the support of the county fisheries committee.

I ask the House to consider what this recommendation was. At the present moment, within the present arrangements, there is a figure provided which is exactly the same as it has been in the past, namely, 8d. per stone for the pilchard industry. This is the figure which relates to the total sum I have already mentioned, £14,000 to £28,500, or 20 per cent. of the normal catch last year. But here arises the real difficulty. Pilchard, like herring, disappear at times. We do not know why. I think I am right in saying that in the days of Elizabeth I a speech was made in this House about the disappearance of the pilchard. These things happen. The fishermen are share fishermen, and they have to decide whether to go out to hunt the fish—because that is really what they do—or stay at home.

When the fish are in abundance, the 8d. a stone is perfectly all right. The more abundant the fish, the better that system is. The main object of the levy is to steady the industry and lessen any real hurt to it. But the hurt comes when the fish are found not to be there. The fishermen are faced with a dilemma. Shall they go out and search for the pilchard at times when it seems that the pilchard, for some reason which no one knows, are not there? If they go out for only half a week they are not unemployed during the second half of the week, and they have quite rightly, to bear the cost of the stamp because they are employed and they receive no unemployment benefit.

All in all, the share fishermen in their vessels are confronted with a quite extraordinary and exceptional position, in that it pays them not to go out to fish. Therefore, being reasonable men, they put their suggestions to the White Fish Authority. The Authority agreed with them, taking into consideration this state of affairs, and said that it might well be much better to put this subsidy in exactly the same form as the subsidy in respect of the remaining 80 per cent., letting the subsidy fall on the vessel proceeding to sea to fish, thereby giving the incentive to go out and fish. This is surely the most reasonable way to treat it.

There is the other factor, that the pilchard fishing industry is today maintained by the canning section. The question of salting the pilchard for the

Italian market, which we all used to know about, has gone. The whole run of a canning factory's work and the fish coming into the factory for canning must be kept at an even level. Once again, from that angle, it would be very much more sensible and reasonable to put the subsidy upon the vessel instead of upon the catch.

I feel very strongly on this point for two reasons. Although only a few Members of Parliament actually represent the areas where pilchard are caught, the pilchard industry is part of the pattern of our national life. It always has been so. Not only does it help to provide variety in our food, but it provides also what many hon. Members have spoken about from time to time, namely, the type of men who man small ships, men whom this nation has at times been extremely grateful to have. What the industry, backed by the White Fish Authority and by the county committee, wants to promote and maintain, without of necessity costing the Treasury any more money, is refused by Her Majesty's Government. I cannot see the reason for this. It cannot be that they are awaiting the report of the Fleck Committee because action has been taken in other directions. I regret this decision by my right hon. Friend.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hay man: As a Cornish Member, I rise to support what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) has just said. From time immemorial the pilchard industry has been one of the staple industries of Cornwall. One of our mottoes used to be to the effect that our chief industries were copper, fish and tin. When we speak of fish we really mean the pilchard, which was the staple article of diet for the working classes almost to the end of the last century; but I need not dilate on that now.
The hon. Member for Bodmin has explained what the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee, in conjunction with the White Fish Authority has in mind. Both these bodies have pressed on the Minister a fresh scheme for a subsidy arrangement which they believe would be of far greater benefit to the industry than the present subsidy, which subsidises a night's catch. The present


Scheme can sometimes be of benefit at a time when fish are plentiful, but it provides nothing when the boats return with little or no fish.
The proposals made by the White Fish Authority are based on the nightly or daily trip in the same way as the Herring Board caters for the herring boats. Surely that is not too much to ask and for the life of me I cannot understand why the Minister has boggled at this suggestion. There is great uncertainty and uneasiness in the fishing ports of Cornwall. The Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee has been a very live and active committee all through the years, and is in close touch with the fishermen themselves.
As the hon. Member for Bodmin said, the White Fish Authority has set up a Pilchard Industry Development Committee. The chairman of the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee and leading fishermen of Cornwall are members. This is the type of thing which the White Fish Authority was set up to do, but at a time when it is making a suggestion of real benefit to the industry the Minister says, "No." I cannot understand why the Minister has done so, but perhaps he will explain the position later.
The canning industry, which is ancilliary to the fishing industry, faces severe competition from South Africa, to some extent from Japan, and from California. What the Minister is doing in another Department of his Ministry in regard to the pig industry is causing great concern amongst us. As I said last week, we have severe unemployment in West Cornwall and these things, added together, are causing great anxiety in my constituency and in the County of Cornwall.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) is fortunate that he has just returned to the Chamber and missed much of the debate which has been devoted to Scotland.

Mr. Hayman: I was absent because I was attending a Committee upstairs which is very concerned about the pig industry.

Mr. Howard: I was only saying that the hon. Member was lucky in missing a

large part of the debate, which was devoted to Scotland.
I am glad that we are having a chance to voice some of our worries about the West as opposed to the North. May I add my word of thanks to the Government for letting us have this debate at a sensible hour, and congratulate the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) and say how glad we are to see him making the opening speech from the Opposition Front Bench, because nobody has done more for the fishing industry than he has in his long years of service.
I should like to carry further what has been said by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne. The first problem in the fishing industry is the disposal of the catch. This must be done at an economic price if we are to compete with imports from South Africa, California, and the admittedly small token imports from Japan, though some of us are worried that these token imports may be increased.
The White Fish Authority has, with considerable difficulty, put over a pilot scheme—which we think might be a good thing—to explore new methods of fishing in the west of the Channel. It is not much good, when one has tried hard to sell this story to local fishermen for the Government to turn down the White Fish Authority's proposals on this change in the subsidy rate. The fishermen ask what is the good of having this pilot scheme if it appears that the Government take no notice of the White Fish Authority's proposal for the change in subsidy.
The problem of unemployment benefit is a difficult one. On the present subsidy rates, will a man be prepared to go to sea and risk losing his unemployment benefit? I am not saying that we ought to advocate that the fishermen ought to stay in harbour and get the unemployment benefit, but these men are human and if it is problematical whether they will catch fish it is obvious what they will do. I raise this next problem every year and I make no apology for doing so again.
Shell fishermen are not included in the subsidy. We are told that this is a luxury, but so is sole, turbot and other fish which come under the White Fish


Subsidy Scheme. One has the same fishermen fishing in the same area with the same boats, gear and everything. One gets a subsidy and the other does not. If the Government cannot soften their heart, at least let us look into the question of viviers, where shellfish can be kept alive and healthy for up to three months. This is done in France. It is not expensive and quite easy to do, and I think that the Government can help the shell fishermen by looking into the provision of such a facility.
The last problem is to explain to the fishermen why we cannot have base lines. They see the Icelanders getting away with it. There is a great deal of international talk, but no international action, and the fishermen ask why we do not do the same, because this would stop the Frenchmen getting into Mount's Bay and taking a large share of the available lobsters.
Why cannot we have base lines? If we make a new approach and say that we will examine the problem again from the point of view of base lines instead of the three-mile limit, we may have a new basis for discussion, but it is very difficult to put over to inshore fishermen the fact that what goes for other people does not go for them. This country always seems the last to do anything of that sort, because it is frightened of upsetting somebody. Others who are not so frightened get away with a lot more.
Under the present subsidy arrangement—and I am glad that it has not been cut—we have the problem of unemployment benefit. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, we have a scheme put up by the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee and the White Fish Authority, which itself was set up by this House to advise upon the fishing industry. This scheme is to change over from the 8d. a stone basis to the daily payment basis. The proposal was a fairly reasonable one. The subsidy was to be £2 in respect of boats from 18 to 21 feet and £6 10s. for the 40-foot boats. A letter addressed to me from the clerk of the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee says:
The proposed revised rates of subsidy agreed at the meeting are based on the pilchard fishery costings investigations carried out by the White Fish Authority and on the sizes of boats normally used in this type of fishing.

The letter continues:
These rates would, in general terms, give a return of 15s. for each member of a boat's crew for each night spent at sea, irrespective of the quantity of fish landed.
The letter further states that this would encourage the fishermen to go to sea, and that it ought not to cost very much more than the present arrangement. I cannot see why this matter has not been agreed to by the Government.
When I wrote to the Minister on the subject at the beginning of June I received the reply that the Minister would give the matter careful consideration. Now we are turned down, on the excuse that we must wait for the report of the Fleck Committee, although the other subsidies can apparently be changed without waiting for that report. It is always the same old story: what is fitting to do in one respect is not fitting in another. We have been waiting two years for this report, and I suppose that if we are still here next year we shall have the same debate and shall still be told that nothing can be done because we are waiting for the report of the Fleck Committee.
What is the good of the White Fish Authority putting up this pilot scheme to look into new methods of fishing? That scheme may mean that we shall need new boats, with new types of gear. It is doubtful whether the existing boats could trawl with the necessary gear. They would probably need stronger gear and winches, and bigger boats. We do not know. We cannot sell this sort of story to the local fishermen if, on the one hand, we tell them that the White Fish Authority is a splendid organisation which has put up this pilot scheme to help them, and then, on the other, that we are not taking any notice of what the Authority recommends because the matter is one for the Government.
The Government have been able to help us in one small way. We asked for help in the building of a slipway at Newlyn and we received it. I want to ask for one more thing before I finish. It is a well-known Government procedure for a Minister to say that it is not his job, and that inquiries should be addressed to somebody else. For a long time I have been trying, on behalf of the Newlyn and Mousehole Fishermen's Association, to get radar assistance, with


a beacon on the Wolf Rock. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Transport, and the august body known as Trinity House have each, in turn, said that it is not their responsibility. I tried to shame Trinity House the other day by saying that we would pay for the beacon if Trinity House would instal it, but it transpired that the only installation we would be allowed was one with a range of only 10 miles, and the fishermen did not think that that would be any good.
The fishermen say, "If we cannot have that let us have a light and a fog signal on Carn Dhu. This would be some aid to navigation for fishermen approaching Newlyn Harbour". I could not agree more. The lights in the area are so bad that on a trip in the Trinity House vessel I was told that she came into Penzance by the lights on Morrab Road, because they were the only ones they could see. I have no doubt about that, having seen them from seawards myself. The Association has written to me about the erection of such an aid to navigation. It says:
We ask you now to take this up on our behalf and legislate for funds to be made available for aids to navigation for fishing vessels. Though we are stressing our own particular need we feel that there is a special need nationally for such a fund, which is not covered by the Fund for General Navigation administered by Trinity House.
I ask the Government to do something about that.
We cannot vote against this White Fish Subsidy Scheme, because it has been said that if we do the fishermen will not get anything. We must, therefore, reluctantly support the existing arrangement. Nevertheless, I hope that we will not be given the same answer next year, namely, that the Government are waiting for the Fleck Committee's report. Let us re-examine the proposal for daily payment. I believe it is right. That is not important. The Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee thinks it is right, which is more important, and the White Fish Authority thinks it is right, which is most important. If the Government have confidence in the Authority they should follow its advice. If not, they should scrap it.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: When I listened to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) opening the debate

I was frightened by the number of things he listed as being out of order. I hope that I may receive a little indulgence if I stray from the strict paths of what is proper in this debate. First, I thank the Government for the help they have given my fishermen in building the harbour in Carradale. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard), although perhaps disappointed at the fact that the debate has turned north again, will at least have some sympathy with me, in that we are still on the West Coast.
Those of us who know the West Coast of Scotland appreciate that one of the most important things is to get the fishing industry going there again, both in regard to employment, and the money that it will bring. It is satisfactory that this small band of fishermen at Carradale, having increased the number of boats fishing from there, have been rewarded by Government help in the completion of their harbour. All the fishermen who come from my area have one particular point of interest. In these debates my predecessor and others have for many years asked the Government to consider putting an "A" port in the Clyde area. The Argyllshire fishermen are not jealous about this. Although they would, naturally, prefer it to be at Campbeltown, or Tarbert, they would be quite satisfied if it were provided in the Clyde area, because—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now straying beyond the bounds of order. There is nothing in the Scheme about provision for harbours.

Mr. Noble: Thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was afraid that I might be transgressing a little.
My second point, which I hope is within the bounds of order, concerns the size of the boats for which the subsidy is paid. The Clyde Fishermen's Association has written to me and I have sent on the letter to my noble Friend. The association feels that a great help would be given to the industry if the size of the boat, which, at the moment, is 40 ft., could be reduced to 39 ft. I know that in these things there must be a limit, otherwise abuses creep in, but I believe it to be true that, were a small reduction made in the size, only a comparatively small number of boats would be affected, but it would give great satisfaction in the


area. I suppose that the alternative would be to add a small bit to the bow, but that might be illegal.
A point which worries many of us is whether the subsidy should be given in cases where the catch consists largely of immature fish. If I pursue that point further I shall go beyond the scope of this debate, but I hope that in mentioning it I am in order.
I should like to follow what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives about shellfish. In the past there has been a considerable quantity of shellfish available on the West Coast, and at one time a number of boats took advantage of that fact and made a good living from that type of fishing. It is a deplorable fact that today a great many of the boats engaged in fishing for shellfish come from France or Belgium, or some distant country, to make a living off the coast of Scotland.
The Government should encourage the local fishermen in some way. Perhaps the only way to do that would be by a subsidy, though I cannot believe it is the only effective way, because if boats can come from abroad and make a living surely our own boats could do the same. But I feel that in some way this type of industry should be encouraged. I hope that the fishermen on the coast of Argyll and further north, round the Islands, will be re-established in this industry and gain a profitable livelihood for themselves.

6.32 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I wish to preface my remarks by associating myself with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) about the great services rendered to the fishing industry by the Royal Navy. The fishermen whom I try to represent feel that they owe a great debt of gratitude to the Navy and it is important that when such services are rendered the fact should be mentioned and the thanks of the House conveyed to the Navy. I wish to talk about the port of North Shields—

Lord John Hope: I do not disagree with anything which has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), but the reason why the Government have said nothing about what has been done by the Royal Navy

for the fishermen is because they did not think that such a reference would be in order in this debate. I do not wish to embarrass my hon. Friend, but it is a little awkward if, the Government having said nothing, one or two back bench Members say that something should be said about the Royal Navy. In another context, the Government would be only too pleased to say something about this important matter.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the great services rendered by the Royal Navy, which are acknowledged by everyone, is a matter which is strictly germane to these Statutory Instruments. No doubt an occasional reference might be in order. It might be argued in some way or other that owing to the restricted ground over which our fishermen now have to fish, the call for a subsidy is greater than otherwise it might have been. But it is not for me to put ideas into the heads of hon. Members. I think that the hon. Lady should content herself with what she has said, which, I think, represents the view of the House.

Dame Irene Ward: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I had passed from that point. But I am grateful for the intervention of the Joint Under-Secretary. I have always believed that there are ways and means of doing things in this House if one wishes to do them, but perhaps we had better leave it at that.
I wish to discuss the problem of the port of North Shields. I am in something of a quandary, because when I came back to the House of Commons in 1950, I found that my constituency contained this important and ancient port. On occasions when matters relating to fishing have been raised the Minister concerned has said that the great and grave problem in North Shields was to keep the port alive because of the decline in the number of trawlers and the amount of fishing carried on from that port.
Nothing has ever been said about the old vessels which operate from that port. In 1939 there were 60 trawlers. We take second place to no one in the country, but I recognise that from the point of view of fishing the port of North Shields has always been a small one. There are now 17 trawlers attached to the port;


16 of them are coal burners and there is one diesel-engined trawler. The port is unique in that the local authority owns the fishing quay, and in order to sustain the port it has spent a considerably amount of the ratepayers' money on the quay. Therefore, the local authority is interested in what the Government propose to do to help the fishing industry.
Our problem has been that the families of trawler owners which have always been associated with the fishing industry have, in recent years, not wished to continue their connection with that industry. I am not referring now to the small men who have invested their savings in one or two trawlers, but to families who have always been associated with the industry. Now there are no sons to follow the fathers, and there is anxiety about the future of the port.
I am glad to say that there has suddenly been a revival. One of our major firms has started to build six diesel vessels. One has already been built and is in commission. Like the hon. Member who spoke for Milford Haven and my hon. Friend who spoke for Fleetwood, I agree that it is very important to keep a balance in the port when we are building our new diesel vessels. They cannot be built in a very short time, and we fully recognise that we are late in starting. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend would have been very gratified that his anxieties for the port of North Shields have now been removed, and that instead of making it more difficult for us to keep going he would have been only too delighted to give us the maximum support.
I am told by those who are in the industry in North Shields that by the reduction of our coal-burning trawlers from 60 to 16 we have been doing more than the Government asked us to do. It is unfortunate if that is so. We have reduced the number of coal burners at almost too rapid a speed and we are in danger of getting the fleet out of balance. We do not feel that we can afford to allow any more of these coal burners to go out of operation and still maintain our port. By reducing our subsidies, the Government, instead of sustaining the port, are making the possibility of collapse a reality. I cannot think that that is the intention of my right hon.

Friend. Therefore, I am asking for reconsideration of these subsidies.
We cannot maintain trained crews unless we have a certain number of trawlers fishing from the port. It would be quite out of keeping with good commercial practice if, while we are building our new diesel vessels, our trained crews were to be dispersed, because we could not get them back again. All the employment connected with the port would be interrupted and our market contacts for fish supplies throughout the North-East Coast would be also interrupted. We would be faced with even more grave and anxious difficulties than those which we have been facing for some time. Just at the time when we felt that our difficulties were being overcome it is very hard that my right hon. Friend should hit us upon the head. It is very bad behaviour towards the port of North Shields.
In many ways I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is immensely patient in listening to grumbles and he always finds time to see me and to be pleasant and nice. When Ministers are pleasant and nice I feel a little hardhearted in being so disagreeable to them. It would be very much better technique for them to be unpleasant to me. I know that I am a very obstinate creature. When I have been telling my right hon. Friend that the trawler owners cannot indefinitely run the old ships at a loss he has expressed doubts whether they were running them at a loss. He feels that the trawler owners can go on financing these ships out of their own pockets and that the Government can withdraw part of the subsidy which goes to trawler owners. My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde said he thought the accountancy in the Ministry left much to be desired. What I have heard here this afternoon makes me feel that my hon. Friend was speaking the truth.
The extraordinary thing is that my right hon. Friend has never invited hon. Members of the fisheries committee from both sides of the House to hear him argue on the figures of the British Trawler Owners' Federation. I do not say that my right hon. Friend is wrong and the Federation is right, or otherwise, but only that I have never heard the arguments. Being a practical and logical individual from the North-East


Coast, I should like to hear the arguments deployed so that I could know which side I supported. I am not prepared to accept the view that the port of North Shields can carry on because my right hon. Friend thinks that the figures which have been presented to him, and which have been duly certified by a chartered accountant, do not represent what the British Trawler Owners' Federation say is the existing situation. My right hon. Friend's position seems to be weak. He has never allowed us to hear the arguments so that people like me, who are not impressed with figures, can decide which side of the industry is right.
There are two other points, one a very little one and the other an important one. The port of North Shields comes within a Development Area. The whole idea of Development Areas is that new industries shall be attracted to places where there is unemployment. It is ridiculous to take up the attitude that the Government are prepared to give money to my constituency to attract new industries there—for which we are very grateful—while refusing a relatively small amount of money to keep the old industries there alive. The fishing industry is very important to the security of this country in times of war. I cannot help wondering whether my right hon. Friend has failed in his battle with the Treasury. I do not believe that he is so unmindful of the industry of the port of North Shields as he has tried to make out in the past. I prefer to think that he has lost his battle with the Treasury.
I do not think that either commercially or logically this case has been really thought out. What on earth is the use of trying to attract new industries, to train new personnel and to take people who are unemployed from a skilled industry which is absolutely essential and vital to the country? It just makes nonsense to me. I have listened to all hon. Members who have spoken so far saying that it is impossible to divide against this Statutory Instrument. I say to my right hon. Friend, and to anyone who is prepared to listen to me, that no subsidy is of any use to the port of North Shields if the port collapses. Therefore, I am perfectly prepared to divide against this Instrument, and would cer-

tainly go into the Lobby against the Government. I go a step further than that. If I cannot go into the Lobby against the Government tonight because others do not feel as I do, another time will come when I shall be able to vote against the Government and get my own back on this Statutory Instrument. That is certainly what I intend to do.
I want to make two brief points about this Development Area problem. In my constituency I have seen the problem of unemployment and I know what the fishing industry in North Shields has had to put up with. I am not going to let any Minister get away with thinking that I support him or the policy that is followed. I stand for the interests of my fishermen and my fishing port. I have noticed that several Scotsmen have taken part in the debate today. I noticed that, although I could not get a tax concession for the dry docks in North Shields, the Treasury was able to give a grant for the building of a dry dock in Greenock.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is going beyond these Statutory Instruments now.

Dame Irene Ward: With very great respect, Mr. Speaker, of course you are a Scotsman. I shall not venture into that subject, but I have noticed it.
My final point is this. I know we cannot discuss the Icelandic dispute, but I say to my right hon. Friend, as everyone else has said, that I hope we shall be able to have a fishing debate which can cover the whole scene. The fishing industry, quite apart from the question of subsidies, difficulties over catchings and so on, is in an unsettled position. Crews of trawlers, wherever they go, whether to the Faroes or to Iceland, find that it is in a very unsettled and anxious position. I say this deliberately. It seems quite the wrong time for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to aggravate the position of the industry, and I hope there will be a chance of registering a vote against the Government.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) said that she was an obstinate creature. I should certainly not have accused her of that: I thought that she was rather pliable. Even so, there is no need to apologise for


being obstinate in politics, for it is the obstinate Member who is listened to. while the obedient and humble servant is disregarded by Ministers. The hon. Lady need not worry even if we accuse her of obstinacy, but I disagree when she says that she is practical and logical.
I have risen to voice only two grievances of my constituents. One is about the subsidy paid for boats of 40 ft. I have a constituent who owns a boat which is 39 ft. 8 ins. Because his boat is 4 ins. short of the specified length, he has been refused the subsidy. I suggest it is too bad to deprive a fisherman of a subsidy because his boat is 4 ins. too short. I asked the hon. Member for Banff (Sir. W. Duthie) how that boat could be made the required size, but it was impossible to get the Minister to agree to give this fisherman what all the other fishermen in the area were getting, simply because it was 4 ins. short. I suggest that the Minister should make his regulations a little more elastic.
Then there is the question of fishermen who now wish to restart fishing. On the West Coast of Scotland and in Ayrshire the number of fishing boats has been declining steadily, largely because there was more remunerative employment elsewhere. In some fishing villages in my constituency men who formerly made a living by going to sea have been going to work at Prestwick and have been employed by Scottish Aviation Limited at better wages than they could get by going to sea. They now find unemployment coming into those industries and the result is that they look forward to the prospect of going back to sea. When they approach the Government with a view to obtaining a second-hand boat the answer is that there is no provision for that.
I suggest that possibly there might be a drift back to fishing simply because of the breakdown of other industries on the West Coast of Scotland. I therefore ask the Minister to be a little more humane and generous in interpreting these regulations.

Sir James Henderson-Stewart: I do not contest the remarks of the hon. Member in relation to Ayrshire, but it is not the case that fishermen are leaving industry to go into fishing because of unemployment. In Fife, there is a revival of fishing. Several ports

have more boats than they have had for many a long year. It is because they like fishing that they are taking it up, which is a very encouraging fact.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I wish to begin with a point which, I think, will attract unanimous support. We all recognise the fortitude, and often courage, with which fishermen carry out a very tough job. I am also sure I am speaking on behalf of the whole House when I say that we were delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) making his maiden speech from this Box.
I think that I probably still have the unanimous support of the House when I say that we have every sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman the Minister. We all recognise that he has a pleasant and charming character and that he is unfortunate to be the centre of a great deal of disquiet. Perhaps hon. Members are not all unanimous when I say we believe that he has some responsibility for the disquiet which affects not only the fishing industry but agriculture and horticulture as well.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) described this debate as a non-party debate and gave the rather naÏve description of non-party debate as being one in which we all criticise the Minister. I do not think any hon. Member who has spoken from either side of the House, in spite of the impending General Election, has been able to restrain his criticism of the Government. I was very surprised that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who opened the debate, was so complacent about the herring industry. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, I call his attention to the Report of the Herring Industry Board. On the first page the Report says:
The state of the herring-fisheries of the North Sea continues to be a cause for grave concern.
As far as the white fish industry is concerned, we discussed a similar Order last Session under the shadow of the Icelandic dispute. We now know that that shadow has deepened. I should like to know from the Government, as it certainly affects the scale of this subsidy, what their plans are for the second Law


of the Sea conference. I should like to feel that something effective is being done.
In the same way—I make no apology for raising this matter, which has been raised by several hon. Members—I should like to know what the Fleck Committee is doing. I have complained time after time of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Whenever it is presented with a problem, it sets up a committee. In fact, I have occasionally asked it to set up a committee to force it to face up to a problem. It set up a committee two years ago. When shall we hear from the Fleck Committee? Have the Government asked for interim reports, because we certainly need them? We cannot remain in this present condition. Moreover, we have had the experience of the Runciman Committee's Report. We know that we have to wait two or three years after the receipt of this report for the Government to consider it, and we know what they will do because we have precedents. They will set up at the end of the day a committee to advise about the committee that has reported. It certainly is important that we should get some statement from the Government about the Fleck Committee's report and when we can expect the report.
When we discussed the legislation upon which these Statutory Instruments depend, we recognised that there were two basic problems. We really have heard about only one in the debate today. The two problems which faced the Government when they introduced the legislation were, first, the decreasing fish stocks in our traditional fishing grounds, and, secondly, the question of the efficiency of the fishing fleet. I thoroughly support those hon. Members who have said, "Let us have a debate regularly on fishing." Indeed, I say let us have regular debates on private industries which are subsidised. We regularly debate the nationalised industries which in fact are obliged to pay their way. It is much more germane that we should discuss those industries which regularly depend upon the taxpayer for support. That is a proper function for Parliament. We should try to get it accepted by Parliament that we ought to have regular reviews of Indus-

tries which receive aid from the taxpayer.
Much that we have heard this afternoon is very disquietening. Here is an industry under private control which has boats which are far too old and which has had those boats far too long after its attention has been called to it. I am not trying to stigmatise the industry, and I am certainly not making a criticism of those making a living in the industry. Of course, it is a criticism of the doctrinaire views of hon. Members opposite. The sort of things which they have said this afternoon are not the sort of things which they will say at the hustings. We have to recognise that the difficulties of the industry are very different from views put forward by doctrinaire Tory politicians. However, if the taxpayer has to accept the responsibility for aiding the industry, then the House has to accept the responsibility for regularly reviewing that industry.
Turning to the grants themselves, we, of course, welcome the extension of the aid from £17 million to £19 million. We note the provision made for the increase in the maximum grant to those who wish to build herring drifters. We can do no more than note it, because we have to recognise that none is being built. No applications have been made. That is the answer to the complacency of the Joint Under-Secretary. By that Order we are not dealing with the essential problem.
We recognised when we brought forward this legislation that one of the overriding problems was the loss of opportunities to fish in our traditional fishing grounds. We should have heard something about that and what the Government are doing, even in a debate on this Order. In the case of the White Fish Order, again we welcome the extension and the increase in the maximum of the grant to £37,500. We cannot do this very enthusiastically for a very good reason. I am tired of saying to the right hon. Gentleman that we are far too much run by the men in Whitehall. This is certainly a case of the men in Whitehall knowing best.
What do we do? We set up a White Fish Authority. It very properly received representations. It recommended to the Minister that the maximum grant should be increased not to £37,500 but to £40,000. Who on earth decided to reduce


it to £37,500, and on what grounds? They have not been given to the House. The Joint Under-Secretary was arrogant enough to come to the House and not even give an explanation for not accepting the advice of this Authority set up to give this specific advice. We know that this is not the advice of anyone in the Department. This is the advice of somebody at the Treasury.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say just how much money he estimates he will save by altering the maximum of £40,000 to £37,500. I should like to know what the estimate is. We know the basis of the calculations and how the figure of £40,000 was arrived at. I want to know why it was not accepted. Again, and it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), the question was raised by the White Fish Authority of extending the loans to the long-distance trawlers. This, again, is a recommendation which has been made, and if the course suggested in the recommendation has not been followed, surely we should have an explanation from the Government. This is not the right way to treat the White Fish Authority.
In considering these subsidies, I am surprised that nobody has pointed out that the Herring Industry Board made a recommendation about subsidies. It called attention to a possible alleviation of the problems of the industry by recommending more dual-purpose boats. It made recommendations about differential subsidies. Last year the Ministers said that they had not had time to consider these points. By now they have had time. Why treat the Herring Industry Board in the same way as they have treated the White Fish Authority in considering its recommendations? If these public bodies, charged with these responsibilities, make such recommendations, they ought to be seriously treated and considered by the Government and we should not have such a nonchalant brush-off by the Joint Under-Secretary.
Let me turn to a question which has attracted the major part of the debate—that of coal-burning and oil-burning vessels. I heard what the Joint Under-Secretary of State said, but, frankly, I could not follow it and I could not reconcile it with Government policy. This is a subsidy which was increased and

which is now being reduced for the second time. This is the reason why I could not follow the hon. Member. I wondered whether he himself could follow it. He said that the subsidy was being reduced to encourage the owners to scrap these vessels, and that the Government were reducing it because the building which the Government had expected had not taken place. Yet the whole purpose of the subsidy has always been stated by the Government to be to keep up fish supplies while the fleet is being modernised. They have said that it was necessary to keep these ships in the water and working. If we have not had the new ships built, what is the argument for withdrawing the subsidy?
I have said time after time that on these production grants we cannot alter our case day by day in this way. We must make up our minds what is the purpose of the subsidy. If it is the oft-proclaimed purpose in this case, then obviously, in those conditions, the subsidy cannot be withdrawn in this way. The White Fish Authority has made it clear that it believes that the subsidy should not be withdrawn in this way. It states that
in the Authority's view, the subsidy support now given to them should gradually be brought into line with that given to motor trawlers generally.
Once again, I did not hear from the Joint Under-Secretary of State any explanation of why the Government have disregarded the White Fish Authority's advice. What is the point of setting up a public authority such as this unless we follow its advice? It is clear that all informed opinion believes that this subsidy should have been left as it was, at any rate until we have received the Fleck Committee's report. What we must accept is that it is no good the Joint Under-Secretary of State saying that we are using this change as an incentive to promote building when that was not the declared purpose of the subsidy. This is important, because the incentives to building are grants and loans, and if we have not had the building that we thought we should have then we should review our policy about them. We are not dealing adequately with the problem, because this subsidy change will not promote building but will knock out some of the owners.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State has failed to make out his case about building, because, in fact, the Authority's Report shows that a good deal of building is going on. That has also been shown by the contributions of many hon. Members to the debate. It is quite clear from the White Fish Authority's Report. Hon. Members who have spoken for Aberdeen have shown what is happening there. It is clear that we cannot argue that there is a lag in building at present which would justify this change, because the position is, in fact, the exact opposite. In the white fish industry there has been a spurt in the applications which have been submitted. There was a lag twelve months ago. Why penalise the coal-burning vessels because of a lag twelve months ago?
What is important to the House today is to face the problem of why there was a lag of twelve months ago. Surely there is not an hon. Member who does not know why. The reason was that it was the Government's purpose to discourage any such building. That was the whole purpose of the credit squeeze, and it affected the fishing industry even more dramatically than it affected many other industries. To quote the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), what a lot of nonsense this is. If the Treasury wants to save money on coal-burning boats, let it provide a good reason. There may be a good reason, but the Joint Under-Secretary of State has not provided it.
Very little has been said about the fact that when we talk about rebuilding we are conditioned by shipbuilding capacity. We cannot build at a greater rate than the capacity permits. I have heard no Government explanation of how the building programme fits in with the overall shipbuilding programme, but, as we know, until recently the yards have been fully engaged. They are not now fully engaged. This is an opportunity. I think that there are signs that the opportunity may be taken, but if it is not there is a responsibility upon the Government to look at the matter positively and to say, if the capacity is not being fully utilised, what steps should be taken to see that it is fully utilised. We are all very much committed to this programme, because we have put a lot of public money into the industry and we want to

see the industry as efficient and prosperous as it can be as soon as possible. We also know that there are specific factors which make things particularly difficult at the moment. All this should evoke a constructive approach from the Government.
We have to consider the question of the fall in the price of scrap. In shipbuilding before, we have had formula; of scrapping and building; that is not novel. Has any constructive thought been given to it? We know quite well that before long in the shipbuilding industry this will be an issue for shipbuilding generally, but here we are particularly concerned with the question of scrap prices. Has any other formula for aid been considered? We know that, unfortunately, building costs have risen in the last twelve months and may rise again in the next twelve months. Has this been considered as a deterrent to new building? That is why I called attention to the White Fish Authority's recommendation and asked whether it was worth the candle to cut the grant figure which the Authority recommended.
We also have to pay attention, as did the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth, to a particular problem. Is the hon. Lady right that we are dealing here with family concerns and with the smaller companies? Have their difficulties been much greater than those of other concerns which have gone ahead more rapidly in rebuilding? If they have, then surely it is within the Government's competence to consider giving this aid differentially. This is a question which always arises in the giving of subsidies. Should we concentrate the subsidy on those in greatest need? Has their need prevented them from replacing new boats?
Let us at any rate look at this problem. We have not had a word about that from the Government. Is it a fact that the particular problems of Aberdeen, North Shields and Milford Haven demand special consideration? Having heard today's debate, I think that there is at least a prima facie case, but, in any event, let us look at this. Let us not stand by and see the family concerns and the small companies knocked out. To speak quite frankly, I believe that is the Government's intention.
If that is the case, I join with the hon. Lady in saying that we should resist it.


We cannot isolate this question. We cannot knock out the boats at North Shields without affecting the port of North Shields. As the hon. Lady said, we must recognise that North Shields is in a Development Area. Within a stone's throw of the port some of the Government's State-aided factories on the Chirton Estate are also facing difficulties at present. We should think also of the ancillary trades in the port. A detached view of the fishing industry appears to show that as the emerging picture.
I should like the Government to tell us just what they are prepared to do for North Shields, Milford Haven. Aberdeen, and similar ports, because it is quite clear from the figures quoted by the hon. Lady—and they were dramatic figures—that the Government are following a policy of knocking out the smaller people and the family concerns.
As I have said repeatedly, we should continually review the purpose of the production grants. My right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) once said something about these subsidies going back to the reign of Queen Anne. For the present purpose they go back to 1950. They were temporary, but, as the Under-Secretary anticipated, they will undoubtedly be extended. I think that there was a good deal in what Lord Boothby said about their having been built in. We need not be doctrinaire about this. I am not one of those who say that an industry cannot do without a subsidy. It is possible that the industry will depend upon a subsidy. What we have to be satisfied about is that there is a case for that subsidy.
I am not putting forward the argument that because agriculture has a subsidy so must fishing, but we must remember that the produce of fishing is competing, possibly, with the produce of agriculture. That has to be considered. We have to consider the fact that one of the purposes of these subsidies is to preserve the inshore, the near and the middle-water fleets, and perhaps we would not get a solution to this problem without some aid. If we want to keep those fleets fishing we may have to accept the provision of a subsidy to redress the balance. But what I am concerned about at the moment—because this is the main point that has been before us in this debate

—is the present concentration of these subsidies on obsolescence.
I was far from satisfied—and I say this with all respect—with the statement of the Under-Secretary. In the first place, it was one of those airy-fairy explanations that come pat out of the Department. That is very disappointing, as it shows a lack of serious thought, particularly when, in some instances, the White Fish Authority is being overridden. It also shows a lack of the will to get to grips with the problem of obsolescence. It has become as clear as day from this debate that one of the most important factors is interest rates and credit.
We have not had any comfort from the Government about that. It is quite clear that the rise and fall of building has been related to the rise and fall of interest rates. There is, therefore, an arguable case for some form of credit institution to finance this—that the subsidy could be better expressed in terms of interest rates—but about that we have had nothing from the Government.
Again, there was certainly something in what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) said about building standard boats. I do not profess that to be easy, although it is often put as a solution for shipbuilding difficulties. It is extraordinarily difficult to build to standard specifications, but there is something in a possible formula linking scrapping with building.
It was very disappointing that, until the hon. Lady spoke, no emphasis had been placed on the social aspects of the industry's present difficulties. It is clear enough that some ports are being threatened by the Government's action tonight. I recognise the difficulties we are all in as a result of our not being able to define our requirements. I can only add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leith, and to those of the hon. Members for Banff (Sir W. Duthie) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in saying that we want an assessment of the size and pattern of our fishing industry.
That is just what the Fleck Committee was asked to do. It is most unfortunate that, after two years, we are driven to accept steps that will affect the size and pattern of the industry. It is all very well for the hon. Member


for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) to laugh about this. This difficulty will affect his constituency just as much as it will some of the other ports. As I was saying, we have been taking steps this year and last that will, in fact, affect the size and pattern of the industry.
There is, therefore, every reason for saying that pending the Fleck Committee's report there should have been a standstill in the subsidy arrangements. It is unfortunate that some sections of the industry will be prejudiced, although it is quite clear from the debate that the whole House wants an efficient and competitive industry, and that the issue of subsidy is not a doctrinaire one that will divide us. But the sooner we can get this report, and the sooner we can get a broadly-based debate on the report, the better it will be.
Meanwhile, unfortunately—and in spite of the invitation of the hon. Lady—we have to accept these Statutory Instruments. But I hope that, even before the Fleck Committee reports, the Government will pay serious regard to the very difficult problems affecting one of our basic national industries.

7.29 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I think that everybody who has taken part in this debate will agree that it has been very interesting. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for his kindly remarks about my personality, and to say that I join with him in congratulating the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) on his maiden speech from the Opposition Dispatch Box. He is a very old friend of many of us on both sides of the Chamber, and although, naturally, I did not agree with everything that he said, I think that he made a very fine debut.
The one point common to all this discussion is that no one seems to have gone out of his way to congratulate the Government on their subsidy policies. I was wondering what the reason was. I suppose it was my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) who put his finger on the spot. He said that all of us in each one of our constituencies where fishing is concerned have our own difficulties. We have heard nothing except

of the difficulties which affect us on the fishing side in each of our constituencies. Perhaps the broader picture, rather than the constituency picture, has not been very much enlarged on.
Anyone listening to this debate would have gained the impression that the Government were doing absolutely nothing to help the fishing industry. There has been criticism after criticism after criticism. The people making the criticisms seem to forget that one of the Statutory Instruments which we are discussing is to provide for an increase of £2 million in the money available for subsidy from £17 million to £19 million, because the money which we have spent in supporting the fishing industry is running out, and we shall probably have spent by the end of 1960 the money which the House agreed was sufficient to cover the needs of the fishing industry up to 1963. It really is neither fair nor correct to say that the Government have been niggardly in their support of the industry. They have gone further than both sides of the House agreed was necessary only two years ago when the 1957 Act was passed.
Much of the debate has been concentrated upon the cut in the coal-burning subsidy. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) said that it was disgraceful that such substantial cuts had been made in the coal-burning subsidy. That lends weight to my view that perhaps some hon. Members have rather exaggerated their case, because we are making a very modest cut in this subsidy. As my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State pointed out at the beginning of the debate, these cuts will vary from 5s. to 30s. per day and will represent an average cut of only 7 per cent.
On the other hand, I sympathise with the concern that many hon. Members have expressed about this. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), in a very balanced and temperate speech, explained some of the difficulties which we were facing. She said that we must try to seek a balance. Although many hon. Members on both sides of the House do not agree with my conclusions, that is exactly what I have been trying to do. We have to try to calculate the subsidy rates very carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) asked me whether I accepted the figures for trading profits and losses supplied by the trawler owners. I assure my hon. Friend that I certainly do not want to give any impression that I think those figures are anything but an accurate statement of operating accounts, but we really must look at the problem realistically. We must look, not only at the operating accounts provided by the trawler owners, but also at the effect which the rates of subsidy which we have fixed are having on the composition of the fleet. The fact remains that the coal burners have not been going out fast enough. In those circumstances, we should not have been justified in refraining from making the moderate cut which we have proposed.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North said that the fact that these vessels have not been going out quickly enough was all due to the credit squeeze. The hon. Member should look at the figures. In 1957, fifty-one coal burners were scrapped. In 1958, forty-one were scrapped. It can be argued that perhaps that was due to the credit squeeze; but I would point out that in the first six months of this year only fifteen have been scrapped. I believe that answers the question which the hon. Gentleman put to us. It suggests that, at the present subsidy levels, there is perhaps not sufficient inducement to owners to take these vessels out of commission.
My noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary said that perhaps we should be accused of not having made a sufficient cut. I was particularly anxious—and so was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—that we should take into account the particular circumstances of ports like Aberdeen, Milford Haven and North Shields, where there is a special problem. It was for that reason that we made what many people might consider are rather moderate cuts.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with various ports. Does he realise that the needs of the ports vary?' Is it not rather hard on a port like Aberdeen, which is doing well in its change-over from coal- to oil-burning ships, to be treated in the same

way as other ports which are not doing so well? Would it not be possible to have differentiation?

Mr. Hare: That point has been raised before. All that I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman is that I believe that I am doing what is fair and best for the fishing industry as a whole.
Some expressions of opinion on this subject in today's debate were far too gloomy. I do not think that those expressions of gloom will help the fishing industry very much. I do not believe that the moderate cut which we are making this year will have any more drastic effect than to accelerate by just a little the rate at which the coal burners leave the fleet.
This is a policy to which we are all committed. Time after time hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that it must be our policy to try to assist in replacing the old by new, modern-type vessels if we are to face the future with any confidence.
I turn from the coal-burning subsidy to pilchards, a subject which was raised with very considerable interest by hon. Members whose opinion I respect very much—the hon. Members for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall), St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) and Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman). It was suggested by those hon. Gentlemen that pilchard fishermen should be paid a daily rate of subsidy instead of a stonage rate. I know that there are arguments in favour of that. They were put forward very eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin in particular. Pilchard fishermen depend very much on the demand from canners, and the canners buy at a fixed price. That means that the fishermen do not gain the benefit of higher prices when supplies are low. Moreover, they cannot always sell the whole of their catch when fishing is good.
The White Fish Authority has suggested to me that I should make the change suggested by those hon. Gentlemen in the method of paying the subsidy so as to even out the pilchard fishermen's income. But the argument that, because the White Fish Authority has made that recommendation to me, I should automatically carry it out is very dangerous.


I am sure that it is not an argument which hon. Gentlemen, if they were to take office, would accept. After all, the responsibility for these matters must rest with Parliament and the Minister responsible, and not with the statutory authority.

Mr. Hayman: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is basing his refusal to accept the advice of the White Fish Authority on the fact that the Fleck Committee at some time in the distant future will report on this? Can he not accelerate the report of the Fleck Committee?

Mr. Hare: I was about to explain why I was rejecting these arguments, and I will endeavour to do so.
There are, in the first place, a great many pilchard vessels and they are small vessels, operating from small ports. I do not think there is much in the argument that, because 80 per cent. of the white fish subsidy is paid in daily rates, the subsidy for pilchard vessels should be paid in the same way. That argument is misleading because the bulk of the subsidy goes to larger ships concentrated at a small number of ports. In view of the large number of pilchard vessels and the number of ports from which they operate, nobody can deny that there would be a real difficulty in checking their times of arrival and departure and determining what actually had been happening.
Again, their operating costs are low compared with the other sections of the industry. To pay a daily rate would undoubtedly encourage fishing merely for subsidy purposes rather than for making larger catches. There could be great danger in that. Then, once we had given a daily rate to the pilchard fishermen, it would have to be extended to a large proportion of the other white fish inshore boats. I can assure hon. Members that I have gone into this matter very carefully and I do not think that a major change of this kind would be wise at this moment. We shall, of course, review the position again, as we shall in the case of all the fishing subsidies, when we have the report of the Fleck Committee, about which I shall say a little more later on.
I should like to say a few words on the subject of depreciation. A number of hon. Members have criticised the depre-

ciation allowance being as low as 6⅔ per cent. per year. That is the figure which we take in our calculation of operating costs. I do not accept this criticism. The rate of 6⅔ per cent. assumes a life for these vessels of fifteen years, and I do not think that hon. Members would expect that these vessels would be scrapped in fifteen years. I think that after consideration hon. Members will agree that this allowance is pretty reasonable.
A number of hon. Members, including my hon Friend the Member for Banff (Sir W. Duthie), the hon. Members for Lowestoft and North Fylde, and the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), raised the question of rates of interest on loans, and other hon. Members who may not have raised this topic will probably be interested in it. It has been said that it is unfair that trawler owners who borrowed money when interest rates were high, should be saddled with these high interest rates throughout the period of the loans, but we must remember that the Government have to borrow the money which the White Fish Authority lends to the industry. The rates which the Authority charges, therefore, reflect the rates at which the Exchequer itself can borrow for corresponding terms. If we agreed to charge the trawler owners less than the rate at which the Exchequer itself could borrow, we should be using the loan scheme to give the industry an additional concealed subsidy. That is not the purpose of the loan scheme.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Surely the Government are responsible for the high rate of interest?

Mr. Hare: I am not saying that the Government are not responsible. That may be part of the policy of the Government. The point is that the Exchequer has to pay for the money it borrows.

Mr. Edward Evans: I dealt with this point at some length in my speech. The request of the trawler owners who wish to buy new vessels is that they should negotiate a new loan, repaying the old one and getting the new loan at a lower rate of interest. I do not see anything immoral or difficult in that. It is a question of negotiation.

Mr. Hare: But the Treasury has already borrowed this money, which in turn has been passed to the White Fish Authority, for a given period of a certain number of years. Therefore, that money is outstanding at that rate of interest for that period of years. The hon. Gentle-roan's proposition is not as simple as he suggests.
I hope the House will agree with me that the purpose of the scheme is simply to provide a source of capital for owners who cannot borrow commercially on reasonable terms. The need of the near-and middle-water fleets for direct financial assistance is met not by the loans scheme but by the grant arrangements and by the payment of the white fish subsidy.
Some hon. Members have suggested that the rates which the Authority charges ought to be related to the Bank Rate. I cannot accept that suggestion. Given the fact that the Government have themselves to raise the money which the Authority lends, surely it is only reasonable that the Authority's lending rates should be tied to the rates at which the Exchequer itself can borrow for corresponding terms.
There was also a great deal of comment on the question of the ½ per cent. interest charge. Several hon. Members have criticised the White Fish Authority because it adds ½ per cent. to the rate of interest charged by the Exchequer before re-lending the money to the industry for building new vessels. This margin is intended to cover the Authority's costs of administering the loans and also to provide a fund against possible bad debts. It has been suggested that these costs of administration should be borne not by those who borrow from the Authority, but by the Authority itself and so by the industry as a whole through the Authority's levy.
I think two points emerge from this. As to the ½ per cent. being too big a margin, the answer is that when the Authority was charging ¼ per cent. it found that the margin was not providing enough money to cover the Authority's administration costs. The margin would, therefore, have had to be increased simply to cover these costs. It seems to me only prudent that the Authority should also make some small provision against possible bad debts.
As to the other point, whether the costs of administering the loans should be borne by the Authority, I do not think it is unreasonable that those who get the benefit of these loans—which are made available at rates which compare favourably with the rates which they would be charged elsewhere—should be asked to bear the costs which the Authority incurs in administering them. The Authority, in any case, has a great many other activities which have to be financed out of its levy. It carries out research. It provides training facilities for new entrants to the industry. It helps cooperative concerns. It also carries out a great deal of publicity designed to increase the consumption of white fish and to improve conditions in the industry I do not think it would be right to ask the Authority to bear also the cost of administering these loans.
I was also asked about the grants ceiling. I was accused of being very niggardly and mean in not having increased the ceiling to £40,000 instead of £37,500. I really do not think hon. Members are being fair in their criticism. Three years ago the ceiling was raised from £25,000 to £30,000. Now we are making a very substantial increase from £30,000 to £37,500. If we had raised the ceiling to £40,000, I am sure that we might well have been asked for £45,000. The trouble is that we never get any thanks for anything we do. I would suggest that the increase we have made is a very useful contribution to the well-being of the industry.

Mr. Edward Evans: That is admitted, but will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he did not take the advice of the White Fish Authority, which was unanimous about it?

Mr. Hare: I would only point out that this rate of increase does coincide with the rate of increase in building costs during the period. For that reason I think that it is a sound figure.
A number of hon. Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff in particular, raised the very important matter of fishery research. I thought that my hon Friend was a little unkind in saying that we were playing with research. This is not true. There are major Governmental laboratories at Lowestoft—which the hon. Member for Lowestoft knows very


well—and Aberdeen for white fish and herring, and at Burnham for shellfish. Expenditure on research is about £600,000 a year. Including marine biological research conducted at grant-aided research institutes at Plymouth, Millport and elsewhere, the Government spend nearer £1 million a year.
The Departmental laboratories have fishery research vessels working on problems concerning shellfish, pilchard and sprats around the coast, on herring in the North Sea, and on white fish in various waters extending as far north as the Arctic. It is not fair to say that we are doing nothing about research, but I do agree that it is extremely important, in any debate on fishing, to stress the need for efficient and progressive research in all these respects.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft, I think, took the view that conservation was of even greater importance than research, particularly as regards herring. In my view, he is right to point out the very great importance of conservation. Our leading research workers have taken a very great part in the development of the science and practice of fisheries conservation through the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and in other ways. Things are looking up in this respect. The North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention, which was signed in London last January, should prove a great safeguard of the fisheries in the years ahead, and we can take pride in the knowledge that Britain and her fishery scientists have had very much to do—a leading part, I would say—in bringing to birth this Convention.
I have tried to answer what I thought were the main points in the debate. On other matters of detail I will certainly try to write to hon. Members. In conclusion let me say this. I do not believe that hon. Members opposite need fear that we on this side of the House regard the future of the fishing industry with any complacency. I can honestly assure them that we do not.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is a good old platitude.

Mr. Hare: It may be a platitude, but it happens to be true. Platitudes are not bad if they are the truth. All of us, even including my old friend the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, want to see

a prosperous fishing industry. By our provision of grants, loans and subsidies, we as a Government, with the support of the Opposition, are playing our part. We are, indeed, in partnership with the fishing industry. I wish to make it quite clear that we on this side are not shirking our responsibilities or letting that partnership down.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is another platitude.

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire has made one speech already.
The Secretary of State and I try to maintain the closest possible continuous contact with the industry on the problems which are facing it today. I think I can fairly say that, although, naturally, they do not agree with all the details of the Government's policy, the leaders of the industry do appreciate that we are trying to do what we, at any rate, think is best for the industry. Both the hon. Member for Sunderland, North and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) laid great stress on the problems of the future. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland spoke about the shape and pattern of the markets, and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North touched on the very grave and complicated future problems which face the industry, on which we are awaiting the recommendations of the Fleck Committee.
I am sure the whole House will agree that we are very fortunate in having Sir Alexander Fleck and his colleagues committed to this great task. They are a very good team of practical men who are fully aware of the urgency and importance of the task they have undertaken. I have so far refused, rightly, I think, to hurry them in a task of such importance. To put undue pressure upon people and so try to prevent them from carrying out in full the inquiries and research which they believe they need to deal with the problems facing them, would not be a responsible action on our part.

Mr. Willey: I can appreciate the difficulties in the suggestion, but is there any opportunity of consultation between the Fleck Committee and the Government when the Government are taking steps which, as I have argued, affect the size and pattern of the industry?

Mr. Hare: I quite appreciate the point which the hon. Gentleman makes, and I am grateful to him for seeing the difficulties. There are difficulties, as he suggests, and it is not at all easy to find a solution until, in fact, we have the report. I am grateful to him for his understanding of the position.
We shall all have to consider the report very carefully to see what can be done to achieve a really competitive and prosperous industry in the future. For the moment, I hope that the House will agree that we are right to continue the white fish and herring subsidies broadly on the same basis for the next subsidy year.
I know that the House has nothing but admiration for the courage and tenacity of our fishermen—the hon. Member for Lowestoft said this in his opening remarks—in what must always be, despite all the modern improvements and advances, one of the most arduous callings there is. They deserve well of us all, and all hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown today that they have their interests at heart.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to give an assurance that he will look very carefully into the suggestion of Government assistance for lights which Trinity House says that it cannot provide for fishermen, which

is something of the greatest possible importance to them?

Mr. Hare: That was one of the points that was drawn to my attention. I did not want to detain the House too long by dealing with them all. As I said towards the end of my speech, I shall be only too pleased to write to my hon Friend about that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1959, dated 24th June, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.

Herring Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1959, dated 25th June, 1959 [copy laid before the House, 25th June], approved.—[Lord John Hope.]

White Fish and Herring Subsidies (Aggregate Amount of Grants) Order, 1959, dated 24th June, 1959 [copy laid before the House, 25th June], approved.—[Mr. Hare.]

White Fish Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) (Amendment) Scheme, 1959, dated 24th June, 1959 [copy laid before the House, 25th June], approved.—[Mr. Hare.]

Herring Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) (Amendment) Scheme, 1959, dated 25th June, 1959 [copy laid before the House, 25th June], approved.—[Lord John Hope.]

POST OFFICE (SUBMARINE CABLE SYSTEM)

8.0 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move,
That the Agreement, dated 16th March, 1959, between Her Majesty's Postmaster General and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company for the acquisition of facilities to increase the capacity of submarine cable systems, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved
The first coaxial cable used for telephone communication between this country and the United States of America was laid across the Atlantic in 1955. Two coaxial cables were laid and the original intention was that there should be 29 speech channels in each direction—that is to say, 29 speech channels from England to the United States on one cable and vice versa with the other cable. The quality and tone of that service were absolutely superb and the experts were astonished at the technical performance. I think that the accountants were confounded from a financial point of view because of the enormous number of people who wished to take advantage of this excellent new service.
This Agreement, which is a substantive Motion for which I ask the approval of the House, is an arrangement whereby new techniques will be introduced at each end of the cable for two reasons. The first is that they will extract more speech channels from the same two cables which now lie at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. The second is that they will keep the quality and tone at the present high level.
Any agreement of this nature comes under Standing Orders Nos. 87 and 88 of the House. Standing Order No. 88 reads:
Every such contract, when executed, shall forthwith, if Parliament be then sitting, or if Parliament be not then sitting, within fourteen days after it assembles, be laid upon the Table of the House, accompanied by a minute of the Lords of the Treasury, setting forth the grounds on which they have proceeded in authorising it.
I apologised yesterday for not carrying out that Standing Order. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson) was kind enough, with characteristic generosity, to accept that apology, but

it would be only right to say again that we at the Post Office—it is my responsibility entirely and no one else's—did not comply with that Standing Order.
I give this as a reason, but not as an excuse. It is difficult to comply with the Standing Order in dealing with international agreements, because it means that the Post Office, or the Government, must be the last to sign the agreement. In this case, as I said yesterday, we signed the Agreement first. The reason was that the American Telephone and Telegraph Company engrossed the Agreement and sent it to us for signature. We fell in with that arrangement and, therefore, inadvertently prevented ourselves from making an immediate report to the House.
What I have done—and I say, frankly, that from a Parliamentary point of view we could have done a great deal better—is to start a searching inquiry into why we, or perhaps I should say I, made this mistake, and I am trying to create machinery so that we shall not make the same mistake again. The House accepted my apology yesterday. I am sure that it will accept my apology today.
Standing Order No. 87 is very important, in my view. The last sentence of it reads:
… the contract "—
that is, such as I am now asking the House to approve—
shall not be binding until it has been approved of by a resolution of the House.
We have not broken that Standing Order. The sovereignty of the House has been preserved and the Agreement will not become an Agreement unless it is approved by the House.
Paragraph 12 reads:
It is a condition of this Agreement that it shall not be binding until it has been approved of by a resolution of the United Kingdom House of Commons. Until such approval shall have been given, either party hereto is free to withdraw from this Agreement without any obligation hereunder to the other party.
The sovereignty of the House is thereby preserved. We can accept, reject or criticise the Agreement.
Nothing has yet been done or agreed. No step has been taken. Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) told the House that he had once transgressed a Standing


Order and said that he had to bring forward an indemnity Bill. But in that case illegal action had been taken because the regulation in question had been put into effect and people had observed it. The right hon. Gentleman was asking the House to validate action taken by him illegally because the regulations had been acted upon, although, in effect, they had no force. In this case, nothing has been done without the permission of the House, and nothing will be done. We are late in presenting the Agreement to the House. For that I apologised yesterday, and I thought it right and proper to apologise again when introducing the substance of the Agreement.
I should now like to turn to the Agreement itself and to try to explain it without legal language. It is the result of technical development in both the United States and the United Kingdom. These developments have been designed to increase the number of speech channels without modification of the cable itself. It adds a bit of what I call "technical magic" at each end of the submarine cables—that is to say, at the Canadian end and at our end. The United Kingdom has played a part in one invention and the United States has played a part in the other.
The United Kingdom invention, which is a Post Office invention, is called the new channel equipment and it increases the capacity of the existing cable by one-third. Normally, in this coaxial cable, four kilocycles are used for a speech channel. In future, this equipment will allow three kilocycles to be used. This will increase the capacity of the existing cable under the Atlantic by one-third.
The United States has introduced what is called the "Time Assignment Speech Interpolation". To make it more intelligible, it is called "TASI", which are the first letters of the four words I have mentioned. It was invented by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and it doubles the capacity. It does so by what I call stealing the idle period on one conversation to provide accommodation for another conversation. It uses the cable to its maximum capacity. Used together, capacity will be increased from 29 speech channels to 74 speech channels.
I should like to deal with the cost of the terminal equipment in principle. First, both the United States and the United Kingdom are treated alike. Secondly, the equipment from both countries is supplied at cost. The word "cost" includes the cost of development of design. Thirdly, the cost will be spread over all the units manufactured up to 1st January, 1965. That is provided for in paragraphs 3 and 4. The cost of the United Kingdom invention will be £35,000 and the cost of TASI, or the United States invention, will be about £500,000.
The United States invention gives a much greater increase in capacity than our invention. It is very ingenious, complicated, costly and very creditable, and one would wish to congratulate the American Telephone and Telegraph Company on this remarkable piece of research. It is also creditable from the United Kingdom's point of view, because this country manufactured the original cable. The cable was laid by the Post Office ship "Monarch".
We have played our part in this new equipment. In conjunction with the American equipment, we shall obtain more capacity from the existing cables. This is a joint technical development at each end of the existing cable. There were 29 cables in the original design. There will now be 74. That means that there will be another 45 channels in addition to the original 29.

Mr. W. R. Williams: How do the mathematics of the right hon. Gentleman fit in with the Treasury Minute of 29th May, where it is stated that the two techniques can be used in conjunction to provide about two and a half times the number of circuits? I should like a little accuracy in the matter. Two and a half times 29 does not come to 74.

Mr. Marples: Two and a half times 29 is about 74, which I have said. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Mr. Williams: Secondly, do 3 million dollars amount to £500,000?

Mr. Marples: It all depends on the rate of exchange which is used. From our point of view in this country it will be about £500,000 which we shall spend on the United States equipment, and £35,000


on our own. The Americans will have a corresponding expenditure on their side.
May I put it this way, to make it clearer? Originally, we had 29 channels in the Atlantic cable. The cost of that to this country, our end of it, our half of it, was £7½ million. We shall now get an additional 45 channels, 74 altogether, for just over £500,000. By this technical development we have remarkable value for money in stepping up the number of channels and not paying a great deal for it. The figure is £7½ million for 29 channels; and for the additional 45 channels we are spending just over £500,000, which is a remarkable bargain.
That is what I am asking the House to approve tonight. I am very sorry about the laying of the Agreement. I am being frank. I made a mistake, but the House is not committed, and if the House wishes to reject the Agreement or to criticise it, it is free to do so; but I hope that the House unanimously will approve what I think is a great technical achievement by the United States and this country.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Before agreeing to this Motion, which is a substantive Motion, I think that a few things ought to be said about yesterday's statement by the Postmaster-General. Of course, we accept his apology. We do it willingly, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, I think graciously. We accept that anybody can make a mistake. Such is our doctrine that if civil servants make a mistake the Minister has to accept the responsibility for it, although he himself may not necessarily have made it. However, I must say, in the context of the statement that he made—indeed, it is the least that I can say—that it was rather careless.
I want to ask one or two rather pertinent questions. Why the delay in making the statement? I do not think that there is any good in saying, as the right hon. Gentleman did yesterday in reply to my question:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I will. To comply with Standing Orders where other countries are involved is not always easy.
The difficulty is common to every Department which has relationships with other countries. The right hon. Gentleman said:
It means that this country has always to sign last. If, for example, we have an agree-

ment with America which involves Congress and the Senate, it almost means meeting in mid-Atlantic to sign and then rushing home to comply with the Standing Orders."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 35.]
That is a rather lame excuse.

Mr. Marples: I have not made any excuse. I may have given a reason, but I have never given an excuse.

Mr. Hobson: Right. The reason is not a valid one; it is not valid at all. I think that it is more imaginary than real. I do think that the reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave the House yesterday was a flight of imagination. It may not have been hyperbole, but it was an exaggerated statement, because every other Department making comparable agreements has to comply with the Standing Orders, as well as the Post Office.
Moreover, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the Standing Orders are clear and concise on this matter. There is nothing nebulous about them. They are direct. They are reasonably understandable even by laymen. I refer, of course, to Standing Orders Nos. 87 and 88. Indeed, a search to find those Standing Orders is hardly necessary, because the Standing Orders are actually edited under the heading "Packet and Telegraphic Contracts". It does not involve very deep research to find them. The Agreement, which must have been discussed and drawn up by the Post Office, says, in Article 12, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, that the Agreement must have the endorsement of the House.
I want to ask two or three questions to which we have not yet had answers. We are entitled to have them and we are determined to get them. Why, when the Agreement was laid about fifteen days ago, and a copy was placed in the Library on 26th June, was a copy not available for hon. Members in the Vote Office until the afternoon of Thursday, 9th July? Why was that so? Such documents as this must be placed in the Vote Office of the House, not merely in the Library. What is the reason for this strange, sloppy and lackadaisical procedure? It is altogether wrong.
There must be something entirely wrong at Post Office Headquarters. Surely it must be known there that of agreements of this sort copies must be put in the Vote Office, and that it is


not good enough just to place them in the Library of the House. Since when has it been deemed necessary to place documents such as this in the Library only and not also in the Vote Office? I am very pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is overhauling the Department, because this is a quite flagrant mistake, and I hope that it will not recur. Arrangements in the Department have got to be thoroughly overhauled.
It is not often that the Post Office has need to come to the House for legislation. It presents legislation with any frequency only for the normal Money Bill, which is a biennial Bill. Of course, this is not the first mistake that we have had. We were not impressed with the briefing of the Assistant Postmaster-General in another matter. I am not criticising the manner in which he spoke. He did that with a clarity which even I can envy. I am dealing with the Post Office Works Bill [Lords]. It was a difficult Bill which originated in another place and I believe that it was a hybrid Bill. New Clauses had to be inserted here. I do not know where we should have been in the Standing Committee on the Bill but for the Clerks, who are always ready to inform us on procedural matters.
In fairness to the Opposition, I want to say that we really do expect the right hon. Gentleman to pay a little more attention to his Parliamentary duties. I feel constrained to do this. For instance, we had the Bill relating to sponsored television, the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), and the right hon. Gentleman was not present. We had the Post Office Works Bill [Lords]. It was left to the Assistant Postmaster-General. Frankly, the right hon. Gentleman's appearances at Question Time are somewhat sporadic. I say that it is really not good enough. I hope—and this is my final word on the subject—that he will examine the machinery within his Department for bringing to the notice of the House anything which it is his duty to lay before the House, and that he himself will attend to his Parliamentary duties.
As for the Agreement itself, we shall support it. Indeed, we are in agreement with it. It is obvious from the state-

ment which the right hon. Gentleman has made that it will improve the communications between this country and the United States of America, and I am sure that anything that can be done to improve communications between the three great English-speaking nations on this and the other side of the Atlantic is very welcome indeed to us on this side of the House.
I want to ask one or two questions. Both the techniques, the British and American, are for increasing the capacity of the cables, in the case of the British scheme, by 33 per cent., according to the Treasury Minute, and in the case of the American, 100 per cent. Am I right, therefore, in assuming that the Americans have now taken a lead on us in the development of modern telephonic submarine cables? It rather looks as though they have. If so, of course, this is a complete change of pattern. It is Britain which has been in the lead heretofore. While we congratulate the Americans on this invention, nevertheless I think that we must realise that it is somewhat regrettable that we who have been leaders in this should find ourselves surpassed by the Americans. After all, we were the pioneers in submarine repeaters. I do not think any other nation, not even the Americans, had that invention.
Concerning the shore ends of the apparatus, with which, apparently, this Agreement deals, I should like to know whether it was developed at Dollis Hill, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is the research station of the Post Office, or whether it was developed by private enterprise in Britain associated with the Post Office? There are many private companies which have a liaison, and certainly there is an association which is far from tenuous, with the great telephone constructing companies. I should be very pleased if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us whether the British invention was developed under the auspices of the Post Office. It was, in fact, Post Office engineers who developed the submarine repeater.
I take it that there is no question of inserting this apparatus into the cable other than at the shore ends. The right hon. Gentleman made a very categorical statement about that, and presumably he is right, but I should like, when he replies, which I hope he will by asking


the leave of the House, to have an answer to that question. This is rather important, in view of the difficulties which the maritime department of the Post Office is having to encounter at the moment, as a result of the loss of the "Ocean Layer", owned by Submarine Cables, Ltd.
The Assistant Postmaster-General gave very full replies to Questions asked from this side of the House, and said that it was putting some strain on the telegraph ships because they had to go to sea more frequently. The question of the curtailment of leave arose, as well as that of maintenance getting into arrears, because of the extra work, which had been the lot of the "Ocean Layer," having to be carried out by the "Monarch" and other ships of the fleet. If any of this apparatus has to be put into the cable itself, it obviously means greater work for the cable fleet and greater difficulties for the maritime department.
On page I of the Agreement, in the Preamble, it is stated that patents are to be exchanged. Which patents? All our patents, or just the patents of the apparatus which the Americans have produced? I should like to have a little clarification on that, because I am sure that the Post Office is sufficiently cute to see that there is in fact a mutual exchange of patents. To me, it was not quite clear, and I would feel happier in supporting this Agreement if I knew that there was to be 100 per cent. reciprocity.
On the new system, which goes under the name of Time Assignment Speech Interpolation, which is rather a mouthful, I should like to know where it has been tested operationally. Obviously, it is quite a recent development. I do not think that the Post Office would undertake a contract of this sort, involving the amount of money which it does, and, indeed, money in hard currency, without, first, being assured that this apparatus had been tested operationally. I should like information, if it is forthcoming, on that point.
Another question arising from the Agreement which I should like to ask is whether we ourselves shall be able to manufacture this special equipment, which goes under the initials T.A.S.I., under licence, and whether the Ameri-

cans will be able to manufacture our patent, which increases the capacity of the submarine cable by 33⅓ per cent.? With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am not a lawyer but merely a layman, I do not think paragraph 7 makes this very clear. The phrase used is certainly a qualifying phrase. It says:
… the American Company shall use its best endeavors to make available to him or his manufacturers,
this equipment. Likewise, in paragraph 7 (b), the same phraseology is used with regard to British equipment in the ownership of the Postmaster-General.
While it may be very easy for us to exchange our patents, I do not think it necessarily follows that the Americans will be able to do likewise. With the best intentions in the world, if we read the Agreement carefully we find that it comes out clearly and precisely that this is not merely equipment of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, but apparently equipment which is made by other firms, such as Western Electric.
Presumably, knowing American businessmen, and I am not blaming them, there will be very close association between the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and Western Electric. Therefore, it does not follow that this exchange will take place; it merely says that they will endeavour to effect this exchange. I hope we succeed, but, at the present moment, it is far from being clear, definite and precise.
We welcome the fact that, according to paragraph 3 of the Agreement, the Post Office practice regarding contracts so far as costing is concerned is to be the rule. I think that that is highly desirable. As Assistant Postmaster-General some years ago, like the hon. Gentleman who holds that office at the moment, I was chairman of the Contracts Committee, and in that position one gets to know a little about Post Office methods. From my experience in local government before I came into Parliament, and before I entered a Department, I thought that Post Office methods were very sound, commonsense, fair and equitable, and, what is more, very ingenious at times in having checks on costs. I thought that the people in the Post Office were just as good businessmen as some other people whom we could mention.
Of course, when dealing with the Americans, there is a different—I was going to say ethic, but that is hardly the correct word—procedure where they are concerned. It may be that their methods of costing are not ours. As far as profits are concerned, it may be that they are considerably higher than we in the Contracts Department of the Post Office used to recognise. These are very important points, and I should like to have some elucidation of them.
The only real criticism, or my main criticism, of the Agreement is this. I may be wrong, but in reading it—and I read it very carefully, and I think I am right—I find that it states that the design cost of the apparatus, which the right hon. Gentleman has informed us is very costly, is to be covered by Britain and the United States. That is in the Agreement
This is very unusual, because it means that the British and Americans will have to carry the whole of the design costs. What would happen, for instance, if the French, who have a small cable system, or the Italians or the West Germans suddenly made approaches to the British Post Office and to the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and said, "You have a first-class apparatus with 74 speech channels on a coaxial cable as against 24 and we should like to have it."? As we are friends and allies in N.A.T.O. we should probably agree, and we should be the people who had paid the whole of the design costs of the apparatus. That is not quite just or equitable, but there may be an answer to it. Prima facie, it would appear to be somewhat unfair.
I should be grateful for answers to some of the questions that I have asked. If those answers are satisfactory, I am sure that we would readily acquiesce to this substantive Motion.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Williams: On the subject of the explanation given by the Postmaster-General, I am not quarrelling with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson) about some of the things he said, although I am one of those who accept a humble apology in the spirit in which it is given. If all Government Departments had made as

few mistakes as has the Post Office we should not be in a very bad way in the matter of the proceedings in the House. If a slip was made, it is generous on the part of the House to accept that it was a slip and that there was nothing deliberate about it. The reason was given and, personally, I accept the explanation given by the Postmaster-General on behalf of this great Department. I am not saying that there was no merit in the reference made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, but that is my reaction.
I am very much in favour of the interchange of scientific and engineering ideas between the United States and this country especially in world telecommunications. I am one of those who believe that, perhaps, we could extend the scope of the interchange to cover not only the Western side but the European side as well. International telecommunications deserve the best possible scientific and engineering research.
I had the pleasure last year when I was in the United States of visiting the headquarters of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and discussing matters with the general manager and some of the higher executives. It seems very much the case in America, as it is here, that research in this and other directions is to a large extent limited only by financial considerations. In other words, if more money were thrown into research it is possible that the House would not be considering one or two techniques today but quite a number of other new devices and inventions.
I am, therefore, very pleased that we are able today to consider at least two new developments in telecommunications. As one who has spent a large part of his life in telecommunication work, I can readily appreciate the tremendous value of these two devices which we are discussing. I am very much attracted by the American device whereby, for the first time, as far as I know, one can work on the Duplex system in trans-Atlantic transmissions and not have to depend on the Simplex method. I am glad that there has been done with submarine cables what was done many years ago in transmission by morse.
I hope, therefore, that we shall be able to continue, in close agreement with


the United States and perhaps other countries, to develop communications of this sort and bring the world nearer together than it is even today. I do not know, but I imagine that not only should these two new techniques add substantially to the efficiency of the service but they should also effect considerable economies in the working of the trans-Atlantic cable system. I hope that some of the effects of that economy will be shown in reduced charges which might popularise the submarine cable service and telecommunications generally with America.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has looked very searchingly into the Agreement. I do not propose to refer to some of the points with which he has already dealt most ably. He made his points very clearly, and some of his questions deserve a firm answer. I recognise that although the Government are discussing this question on this side of the Atlantic, a private company is dealing with it on the other side. There is not only a commercial significance to the Agreement. By implication, at any rate, there is a political one. Certain of the things that we are doing in interchanging ideas affect not only the commercial side of our work but, inevitably, the security side of international telecommunications. I hope that the Postmaster-General will deal with this point if he is in a position to do so.
Although the Agreement is with a private concern in America, because private concerns run the telephones there, I am tacitly assuming that the United States Government are not only aware of the Agreement but are behind the implications which are involved, some of which are political. I do not know whether the Postmaster-General can answer that question, but the House is entitled to know not only that a private company and several subsidiary companies are involved in the matter, but that the Agreement is binding, politically, upon the United States Government as it is upon our Government.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to elucidate two phrases in the Agreement. The first appears on page I, underneath the word "Witnesseth". The paragraph refers to telephone cable systems

including cable systems in which one of the parties hereto may have no proprietary interest
The second phrase appears in paragraph 5, on page 3 of the Agreement, which says:
with reference to any such unit or units of equipment the cost or a portion of the cost may ultimately be borne by, and the ownership or a portion of the ownership may ultimately vest in. others not a party to this agreement.
The House is entitled to know how many parties outside the two main signatories to the Agreement are involved, either directly or indirectly, by those phrases.
My third question relates to paragraph 4, and concerns a point which was pertinently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. Is it correct to assume that the Agreement relates solely to the two new techniques defined in it, and that there is no question of extending it to cover anything except the two specific techniques and devices referred to and defined therein? I ask that question specifically because I want to know, step by step, about any new techniques or new devices which are from time to time to be the subject of international agreement either with the United States or any other country. From the political as well as the commercial point of view, it would be advisable for the House to be well informed of any developments which may take place in new techniques or devices.
If the Postmaster-General cannot answer some of the points raised tonight, I shall not mind very much. I have no doubt that he will take an opportunity of letting some of us know in other ways, if he is not in a position to do so now. I am very satisfied with this Agreement, and sincerely hope that we are at the beginning of an era in which there will be a greater interchange of ideas on scientific developments and techniques which will add to the general efficiency and economic working of all the intercontinental communication systems.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I think it a matter for regret that the Postmaster-General thought it necessary to return to the subject of apologies. He made his apology yesterday to the House and I should have thought that was


sufficient. I do not think it was necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to go into the matter any further. We all know the trouble. The old saying that we are all fallible mortals applies equally to the Postmaster-General. It must have been rather shattering for the right hon. Gentleman to realise that, but there it is.
I wish to get clear what is happening because one is inclined to get lost among all these figures—29, 74 and all the rest of it. Here we have two new developments, one by the British Post Office engineers and one in America. These developments are complementary. The Americans will use our system with theirs and we shall use the American system with ours. I think it a matter of congratulation to our engineers when one considers what is achieved. Now we have 29 circuits here and we are installing the American system which brings the number up to 56. Had there been no British development that would have been the limit of the available circuits. I think I am right, but no doubt the Postmaster-General will correct me if I am wrong.
The cost of this development was about £500,000, but by the application of the British development we increase that by a further one-third. That brings the figure from 56 to 74. In other words, the application of the British system gives us a further 18. We get that for £30,000 and I consider it an amazing achievement. I think that the British engineers are to be congratulated on getting an increase of 33⅓ per cent. for such a small sum.

Mr. E. G. Willis: They must be Scotsmen.

Mr. Ross: I have no doubt they are.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: They might be Yorkshiremen.

Mr. Ross: I am interested in how this expense is to be shared out. After reading the Agreement I do not come to the same conclusion as my hon. Friend. I thought the development was to be shared out and was not merely in respect of the units to be used by the American company and by the British Post Office. Paragraph 4 of the Agreement states:
The amount of the payment to be made by either party to the other in respect of any one unit of equipment for costs incurred in the development and design of equipment.

as specified in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement, shall be based on the estimated total costs of such development and design for each type of equipment up to the dates mentioned in Paragraph 3 divided by the estimated total number of units of each type of equipment produced or to be produced prior to January 1, 1965, whether by the party which developed the equipment or by the other party … or by any other person …
That is to say, the use is not limited purely to Britain and America. In other words, it may be used by someone else, and if more units are produced, the cost of development so far as we are concerned will be so much reduced.
I cannot understand the finality of this figure of one-third of 3 million dollars in the one case and £30,000 in the other. Is this the full cost of development after the sharing-out process has been completed? Are we entirely satisfied about what the developments are to be, and that many such units are to be produced by 1st January, 1965?
That leads me to my next question. What is the further application of these developments? Surely it is not to be limited to the trans-Atlantic cable, or is it? Admittedly the cost of the development of the American device is pretty high, so there may well be only particular cases in which it will be economic to apply it. Surely the British device can be used elsewhere and found not only efficient but also economic.
I should like to hear from the Postmaster-General exactly what the prospects are of the use of the British development elsewhere. There may have to be another agreement in respect of such facilities. Will it be used in connection with any of the other submarine cables? Has it already been used in that way? Obviously when more units are produced the cheaper the cost will be, not only to ourselves but to the Americans. It would be interesting to find out whether anything has been done by the Americans to reduce the cost to us.
It is reasonably clear that this device will not be manufactured by the Post Office. Is it to be manufactured by the Post Office? Is it to be used here and installed by the Americans? It will be interesting to know what is to happen. I am interested also in knowing how binding the Agreement will be on private companies in America. There always seems to be the feeling that agreements


might not be so binding on private companies as on the Government. That is evidenced by the actual wording of the Agreement, which is:
The parties shall use their best endeavours".
There is nothing terribly binding about that. Anyone with knowledge of Conservative election pledges will agree with me in respect of that wording. I should like to know exactly what it will mean. Is the Postmaster-General reasonably satisfied that these proposals will be accepted?
On the whole, we have to congratulate the engineers of the Post Office, and those who have been working on similar problems in America, upon producing complementary devices which will increase the speech channels from 29 to 74. It is a wonderful achievement at such a reasonable cost. If it can be applied in other systems of submarine communication, it will cost us even less than has been suggested by the Postmaster-General.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Marples: I am grateful to hon. Members for the reasonable way in which they have taken this Motion. I will now try to deal with the Questions which have been raised. I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that I apologised yesterday. I apologised today only because I wished to be courteous. I will leave it at that.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson) mentioned that the Assistant Postmaster-General had been taking a large share in our Parliamentary duties. It is only right that the Assistant Postmaster-General should do what was laid down by Lord Attlee, who said that the Assistant Postmaster-General should play his full part in the House of Commons as well as the Minister himself.
I now come to the questions which the hon. Member for Keighley raised.
The first was that our invention had increased the capacity, roughly speaking, by 33 per cent. but he asked if the United States had taken the lead in cables. The answer is no, they have not. Laying a co-axial cable consists of a whole series of operations, the terminal equipment, the cable itself, the laying of the cable, the type of repeater and so on For example, in the first cable,

which was laid in 1955, each speech channel cost £450,000 and we used two cables with the American flexible repeater. Cantat, the third cable laid between this country and Canada, has a single cable with the Post Office rigid repeater which acts both ways.
The United States of America has by no means taken the lead in the whole field of cable laying, but in this particular terminal equipment they have done better than we have done in one respect and we have done better in another respect. It would be entirely wrong to say that they have taken the lead. The only ship in the world capable of laying 1,500 miles of cable in the Atlantic is the "Monarch". I am well aware that the lead we have got must be kept. That is not a platitude such as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) suggested were used in the last debate. We ought to make quite certain that our cable laying capacity is better than any other in the world.
The hon. Member for Keighley asked who took the credit for the invention. The answer is that it is mostly due to the Post Office at Dollis Hill, but, as always, it would not claim the whole credit because it is working in co-operation and collaboration with private industry. It is not really competition between the Post Office and private industry but complementary effort. The rigid repeater, which was largely invented at Dollis Hill has been helped to some extent by private industry. The largest proportion of the work was done by the Post Office and—I say this as an admirer of private enterprise—in this respect most of the credit should go to the Post Office at Dollis Hill, but not all of it. They work together and I should not like us to get at cross-purposes with them over that.
The hon. Member for Keighley asked if the equipment was only at the shore end, the terminal end. He said that as we have lost the "Ocean Layer" that places a large strain on existing ships capable of laying cables. It is a perfectly natural apprehension, but I can give him this categorical assurance that the equipment is entirely at the terminal end and will not require any use of the cable-laying ships. There is no strain and no requirement on these ships and, therefore, from that point of view, the House can rest assured.
In paragraph 7 of the Agreement the hon. Member will find that the patent rights relate to such equipment, but in respect of terminal equipment now going in each party is to pay for its own cost and each party draws the result of the increased traffic. TASI has been tested operationally and our engineers have been across there.
Western Electric is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Automatic Telephone and Telegraph Company, as is most of the Bell Telephone system. The company is an enormously wealthy company. I want to pay tribute to the company. I went to America and the president of the A.T. & T. and every vice-president gave me an incredible amount of time, and a great number of explanations. I brought back from the United States of America millions of dollars worth—I mean that—of films, training films and equipment which they generously placed at my disposal absolutely free of charge. They could not have treated me more generously. I have never received more generous treatment and I wish to pay tribute to them
The House can judge of the financial terms. We had 29 original channels costing £7½ million at our end and now there will be 45 costing just over £½ million. I do not think that on the whole that is a bad deal. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams), to whom I am grateful because of his human approach and great knowledge of the Post Office, in saying that we should exchange ideas with every country in Europe willing to do so Only today I saw four technicians from Germany who came here at my invitation to look at our telephone system. We have been to Germany to look at theirs. We have exchanged ideas freely and I think that an extremely fine thing. As to research, I am quite certain that any Postmaster-General would want to continue the excellent work which has been carried out at Dollis Hill in the past.
The hon. Member for Keighley asked, "Are we losing in the race?" I must say that we are not. We made the first Atlantic cable in 1955. We have made both cables and we laid them with the "Monarch". We laid the rigid repeaters on the Canadian side and the American

flexible repeaters. Now we are laying the second cable similar to the first between the United States and France. We are providing the whole cable and selling it from this country for dollars. We are laying it with the "Monarch", now that the "Ocean Layer" has had a disaster, which is most regrettable. The third cable is the Cantat between Canada and the United Kingdom and we are laying that with Post Office rigid repeaters. I do not want it to go out from this House that we are falling behind in any way. We have played a major part in providing the first three Atlantic cables and that should be known all over the world.
The hon. Member for Openshaw, who represents his English constituency with great efficiency but still retains his Welsh characteristics in some respects, appreciated that this will add efficiency to the cable but said that he hoped it would reduce charges. The price which we now charge for Atlantic calls is the same as pre-war, so it cannot be said that it is an excessive charge. This efficiency will enable us to hold the charges as they are now. I would not hold out any hope of reduction, because I want to look at the Post Office accounts as a whole rather than at any part of them.
The hon. Member for Openshaw raised a point which it is difficult for me to answer. He asked what was the security side of this private enterprise firm in the United States. It is an agreement between the Post Office and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company in America. It has nothing to do with the United States Government. They have not signed it and were not a party to the Agreement.
When I went to the United States I saw the Postmaster-General, Mr. Summerfield, who has powers which I often envy. Congress would not vote him any money, so he stopped the collection and delivery of letters. That is something which I should very much like to do, but I should not like to come to this Box and tell the House that I had done so. He stopped collection and delivery and got the money from a reluctant Congress and Senate and the whole procedure was telescoped into a day. He stopped the delivery on the Saturday and they passed a Bill and gave him all the money he required by Monday.

Mr. Thomas Steele: The right hon. Member could stop the Prime Minister's telegrams.

Mr. Marples: As long as the Leader of the Opposition's telegrams were stopped as well, I would not mind. We cannot say that this Agreement has been made with the United States Government. When I saw Mr. Summerfield, he and the President, whom he took me to see, said quite clearly that the American Telephone and Telegraph Company was their chosen instrument for telecommunications. I would tell the House that Congress has a very tight control over the charges of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and can do at any moment almost what it wants—as the House knows it is a sovereign body—and I would not doubt for a moment that the American Government would take over this Agreement if they took over the American Telephone and Telegraph Company.
I am certain that from that point of view this is the best that we can do. I cannot interfere with the American Agreements. They have chosen the American company for their telecommunications, and it is not for me in this House to say that they are wrong any more than it is for them to say that it is wrong for us to have them under the Post Office in this country.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I did not say that. All I wanted to know was about the security aspect, and I am satisfied with the reply.

Mr. Marples: I would certainly not willingly try to misrepresent anything which the hon. Member said. I understand what he meant. All I wanted to say was that we have to deal with the chosen instrument in America. They have nearly 70 million telephones compared with our 7½ million, and we are the second largest in numbers in the world. We shall have to deal with the position as it is in America.
The hon. Member for Openshaw asked whether the Agreement referred to these two items alone and what was the position about new devices. It refers only to these two because that is all we have, but I can assure the House that there is immense good will and co-operation between the United States and ourselves, and I have no doubt that if there is any

new development we shall share it in the future as we have shared it in the past.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock referred to paying for the costs of development and pointed to the words "and any other person" in paragraph 4. For example, the second Atlantic cable is between the United States and France and Germany and goes to the Bay of Biscay. If they have the terminal equipment at the two ends, they will pay their part of the development charge, and the figure which I have given the House is the maximum to which the Post Office is committed. If we can get it for any less I can assure the House that we shall do so. I do not know whether the hon. Member knows the Accountant-General of the Post Office, who watches my expenses very carefully, but I can assure him that he is as good as any Scot at looking after the "bawbees".

Mr. Ross: Could we be given any information about the prospects of these developments, because they have to be done before 1st January, 1965? If there is anything afoot we should like to know about it.

Mr. Marples: There is a great deal afoot. There is the question of a Commonwealth cable, the first leg of which is between the United States and Canada, followed by the link to Australia, New Zealand and across the Pacific. The Japanese want a cable between Japan and the United States. The whole technique of cable-laying of co-axial cable with rigid repeaters is gaining momentum at an enormous rate, and the next thing will be that television cables will be wanted. One cannot see where it will end. There is a wide field. As the hon. Member for Openshaw rightly said, it is mainly a question of how much money we are prepared to spend both on research and on the laying down of the cable. It is very expensive equipment. We shall not take the burden of development costs alone. The techniques are moving rapidly for the new co-axial cable, not for the old type of telegraph cable. It started in 1955 and goodness knows where it will end.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked who would manufacture the equipment at this end. It will be done largely by private enterprise under the


direction of the Post Office, as is the case with most of the Post Office equipment.
If there are any question which I have not answered, it is not through lack of courtesy. I will read HANSARD, and if I find that I have missed any questions I will write to the hon. Members concerned. I hope that the House will pass the Motion unanimously.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Agreement, dated 16th March, 1959, between Her Majesty's Postmaster-General and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company for the acquisition of facilities to increase the capacity of submarine cable systems, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): I beg to move,
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year ending on 31st March, 1960, which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.
I think it would be most convenient to the House if I moved the Motion formally and later answered questions, which I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have it in mind to raise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, should they catch your eye.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Steele: It is with some pleasure that I speak tonight about the Royal Hospital School. First, I should say that in this debate, as in the debates on the Navy Estimates, we always welcome a new Parliamentary Secretary, and the unfortunate thing is that when next we debate these accounts we shall probably have another. The fact that during the past few years there has been a change of Parliamentary Secretaries has not in itself added to continuity in the work of the Board of Governors, of which the Parliamentary Secretary of the day is Chairman. This is no criticism of the interest shown by various Parliamentary Secretaries in the past, and I should like to say that the present holder of the position was kind enough to arrange for some of my colleagues and myself

to visit the Royal Hospital School at Holbrook.
The arrangements made were excellent, and although the timetable reminded me somewhat of a naval operation, that, too, was excellent. I found the visit very pleasant, interesting and instructive, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the headmaster, Mr. York, and his staff for the splendid organisation of our visit, and for the kindness and courtesy with which we were received. What I saw there confirmed earlier impressions I had gained in discussions in this House and in conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), who is a member of the Board.
One of the chief interests in this yearly debate has been to try to ensure that the tradition of the school is maintained, and that its progress, unlike that of many others, should not be that of having started as a charitable institution and ending as something quite different. Those of us who visited the school and talked to the staff and to the pupils can be reasonably satisfied that all is well in that respect.
One of the interesting things is that this is a comprehensive school, and I say that with a certain amount of pride. Some hon. Members opposite may be rather scared of that term, but it was pointed out to us with some pride that the first boy who went from the school to university had started in the lower grade, had passed through the various other grades, then into the sixth form, and so to the university. If ever we had an example of the desirability of a comprehensive school we have it here.
I do not want to detain the House too long, as I have no doubt that other hon Members will have something to say about their visit. I should like to confine myself to one aspect. As has been said in our previous debates, it is clear that a considerable amount of work needs to be done at the school. A certain amount of redecoration and improvement is necessary. The kitchens have also been discussed in many of our debates, and certain major improvements are essential.
The problem to which I shall apply myself is how this can be done. I start by reminding hon. Members of the


speech made by the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary on 17th July, 1956, when he drew our attention to the fact that many of those things were required and ought to be done, but, unfortunately, the school was not in a financial position to carry out this work. It was announced to the House in July, 1956, that, unfortunately, for the first time fees would have to be paid for Holbrook School. We were assured that no hardship would be experienced and that great care would be taken to ensure that no boy would be prevented from going to the school because of financial hardship. We have been informed since that local authorities generally have been co-operating and assisting boys in the payment of fees. We should like to know whether this cooperation still exists and if it is satisfactory.
I find that the estimate on this occasion indicates that the amount it is hoped to collect in fees in the year ahead is £38,400. That, according to the number of boys at the school, comes to about £60 per head. In July, 1956, we were informed that the fee which would be charged would be in the region of £72 per boy. Taking into account those boys unable to make any payment, it seems to me that the school is about reaching the limit of what it can hope to secure by the collection of fees.
I should like to look at how the £38,400 will be spent. Since 1956, compared with the Estimate now under review, I find that there is a rates increase of £2,650, an increase in the cost of provisions of £2,300, an increase in the cost of clothing and bedding of £1,500, and an increase in the cost of water and heating of £3,570, which is a total increase so far from 1956–57 to the year which we are now discussing of £10,020. These items have nothing to do with providing better education and better facilities. The £10,020 is purely an increase in costs. If I wanted to make this a party matter, I could accuse the Government of allowing costs to rise, but I do not want to enter into any argument of that kind tonight.
The other increases are in wages to the staff of £2,510 and an increase in salaries of £12,600. The largest increase is in salaries. This brings a consequent increase in superannuation of £3,490. The total of all those items is £28,620. The

only item which might have brought some benefit to the school is the increase in salaries, if that has provided extra and better staff. It would be interesting to know if the increase of £12,600 in salaries has had that effect.
The other item of increase is £8,095 on maintenance. I had expected a bigger increase in this item because we were informed that in the year 1956–57 a lot of work had not been done simply because the money was not available. If the school was to do the work expected of it I would have expected a larger increase in this item.
I understand that the major job that has to be done is in the kitchens. In the debate in July, 1956, we were informed that an estimate of £9,000 had been given for work in the kitchens. I would hesitate to say that that estimate still stands. That figure which was given by the then Parliamentary Secretary still stands in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I am quite certain that with increasing costs the job which was estimated to cost £9,000 in 1956 would probably cost a good deal more today. Does this figure cover all the work in the kitchens, and will the kitchens be improved?
This total of £38,000, which is the difference between 1956–57 and now, is eaten up by these items which I have mentioned. Unfortunately, the expenditure continues to increase. I have looked at the actual accounts, the latest item which I have been able to find being for the year ended March, 1958. In the accounts we are able to compare the estimate for 1957–58 with the actual expenditure which occurred in that year, and we find rather a disturbing matter. In that year the Royal Hospital School estimate for expenditure was £175,905 whereas the actual expenditure was £187,123, a shortfall of just over £11,000. There was a sum of £11,000 more spent on the school than was estimated.
I have not the estimated figure for pensions, but the actual payment for this item was £11,000 less than the estimate. We have not had much discussion on pensions, but if expenditure in the school is increasing all the time and we are not able to make the payments in respect of pensions it is most disturbing. I find that in the year ended March, 1958, despite the fact that £11,000 less is paid out on pensions, the expenditure still


exceeded the estimate by £8,000. A sum of £8,000 had to be transferred from the capital account to enable the books to be balanced.
Turning for a moment to other revenue, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not ask me to give the references; he knows where they are on the document, and I have just noted them here for my convenience. First, we find that revenue from other property has gone down between 1956–57 and the estimate for 1959–60. This is rather surprising. In these days of property deals, take-over bids, and so forth, I had imagined that property values were increasing. Here, unfortunately, there is a decrease. The income from interest on British Government and Commonwealth securities is considerably less than it has been hitherto. On the other hand, interest on debenture stocks and income from dividends on ordinary shares have increased considerably. I understand that this is the result of the Board having been given power to make certain alterations in its investment policy. Whereas until 1956 or 1957 the Board was limited to certain securities, it is now able, to some extent, to go, as it were, into the open market and buy ordinary shares and take advantage of capital gains and so on which take place. Interest on loans has gone down.
Despite all that, taking all the items together—revenue from other property, interest on Government securities, interest on debenture stocks, dividends on ordinary shares, and interest on loans—I find that between 1956–57 and 1959–60 the actual increase is only in the region of £8,000. There is not a great deal there.
The moral of my story is that, in spite of the economies which have been carried out and in spite of the fact that fees have been collected, there is a rise in costs at the school, a rise which is altogether outside the control of the Board of Management. Quite clearly, although there has been an alteration in investment policy, it would not be wise to carry that very much further. One must be careful. We must, I think, consider another way of obtaining some money.

Commander J. W. Maitland: Having seen the school, the hon. Gentleman will agree, will he not, that

the rising costs were due also to rising standards?

Mr. Steele: I do not altogether accept that in respect of the first group which I gave. In increasing salaries to teachers and other such matters, there may be some reflection there. Incidentally, I am taking the figures from 1956–57. I am not going back very far.
On the introduction of the block grant scheme for education, we expressed the fear that local authorities might not be too anxious to make a payment for these boys. We know what has already happened in Scotland. There is that danger. I think that the Government have a responsibility to look into this matter.
What the Parliamentary Secretary said in July, 1956, is interesting. He said:
The hon. Member mentioned a direct grant, as did other hon. Members. They said they felt that there should be a direct grant paid by the Ministry of Education. From the Admiralty point of view, that would have been the simplest course. It was discussed at length with the Minister in 1954, and it was made clear that any grant which the Minister could make in line with grants to other comparable institutions would not be large enough to make a significant difference to the school's finances. Moreover, the fact that no fees were enforced would create difficulties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 17th July, 1956; Vol. 556, c. 1178.]
Now fees are being enforced, and the unfortunate thing is that the financial circumstances of the school are no better today than they were in 1956.
I have discovered that there is a grant of £1,485 per year from the Ministry of Education. I have done some research into how this grant arose, and I have had to go back to the year 1895. In that year, the first grant was made from the Ministry of Education to the school. It amounted to £1,000. At that time, there were 1,000 boys in the school, so that the grant amounted to 20s. per year for each boy.
I tried to trace through the records the reason why this £1,000 was given, but unfortunately the records gave me no assistance. Accounts had been laid, but they were not debated, and in the year 1895 the House did not seem to approve them. I find that during that year there was some trouble in the Government, and the two sides of the House changed during the year without an election. No doubt there were troubles, but I could


not find any indication as to why this £1,000 had been paid. I have no doubt that there was substantial justification for it, otherwise it would not have been given.
If the Government at that time found it necessary to give £1,000 and to continue to do so, there is no reason why it should not now be increased to bring it into line with the figure given in 1895. In that year, it cost £25 a year to keep a boy at Holbrook School. Today, the estimated cost is £295 per year, which is approximately twelve times as much. If 20s. for each boy was the Ministry of Education grant in 1895 and it should be twelve times as much today, the grant would amount to about £7,764. It seems to me that the Parliamentary Secretary should go along to the Ministry of Education and to the Treasury to point this out. If he can discover why the grant was given in 1895 that would be helpful. I am prepared to come along with him to argue the case for an increase.
I think that the remedy to the problem lies in having a direct grant of some kind. If the Ministry of Education is not prepared to increase the present grant, I think that it should consider making a special grant for improvements of a costly nature. It might be a once-for-all grant, but at least something has got to be done.
Last week in this House we had before us Regulations to ensure that certain independent schools would not suffer because of the introduction of the block grant. In Scotland, with the introduction of the block grant, freedom was given to the local authorities to decide whether or not they would make a contribution to these independent schools, and the local authorities decided not to give a contribution. So the Government felt something ought to be done. Last week they brought forward Regulations to ensure that those independent schools would not be left to their own resources, but that 60 per cent. of their maintenance costs would be supplied.
If the Government can do that in those circumstances, and if the House, as it has, can agree to a Bill to ensure that denominational schools will get more money to enable them to be maintained in proper condition, then surely it is within reason that we in this House should say to the Government that this

is a school which is doing a wonderful job, which to a great extent is relieving the local authorities and the Ministry of Education of payments which they would otherwise be required to make, and that it is only reasonable that the Government should make a further contribution in some way.
The headmaster and the staff of the school have been doing magnificent work. We should give them all the encouragement we can, and I think that we should do so by bringing some pressure on the Treasury and the Ministry of Education to give them some financial aid.

9.32 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. I took part briefly in the debate we had last year. Since then, thanks to the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, I and my colleagues, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) has mentioned, have had the opportunity of visiting Holbrook, and I should like to add my congratulations to his to the headmaster for the excellently sympathetic way he showed us around upon our visit on 1st July.
I was interested to find 12 boys from my constituency there, and I had the opportunity of meeting them, and I was very glad to find them extremely happy and making excellent progress.
What struck me particularly was to find an adequate and very enthusiastic staff. We visited everything from a classroom to the gymnasium and the magnificent swimming pool, and I think that in all the departments we found that the staff were very enthusiastic and taking a personal interest in the boys individually. I do not think that one could find a more enthusiastic staff.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dunbartonshire, West said that this is a comprehensive school. I do not think that we on this side of the House are against comprehensive schools where they are considered to be necessary. Indeed, I believe that the present Minister of Education has given permission for 11 to be built, but we do not want comprehensive schools purely for doctrinaire reasons, which is very different from the policy of the hon. Gentleman. I was


very interested in the fact that in this school there are these two streams.
In asking the boys what they intended to do in future, what careers they were going in for, one was particularly gratified to find that they were thinking of taking such long, technical courses as are required to be veterinary surgeons, doctors, or farmers and that they really had got down to what I think is so essential for young people, considering at a fairly early age what careers they wanted to undertake. I understand that the liaison on this matter with the local authorities is extremely good, and that the employment officer visits the school to see a boy at an early stage of his stay to find out what career he wants to undertake.
As this was my first visit to the school I was impressed with the efforts made regarding the accommodation, but I should like to see a little more personal atmosphere in the accommodation for the boys. I noticed that there were no personal belongings, and not a single photograph of parents on view. In these very big dormitories, I should have thought that for the older boys, at any rate, it would have been possible to have provided cubicles in which they could have rather more privacy.
In such schools as Dean's Close, at Cheltenham, where there are also very large dormitories, they are provided and they give the older boys more privacy, which I think is very necessary when they are growing to adult age. I do not say they should not decorate their cubicles with photographs of film stars, but one can learn quite a lot from the way in which a boy decorates his cubicle, which is an indication of character. I think that it should be possible to give some facilities for having more personal belongings.
I was also interested in the practical difficulties that sometimes arise in the running of such a school. I am thinking particularly of the boiler house, where a vast boiler is still stoked by hand. I should have thought that if we were 1o go on using solid fuel, instead of oil, in this age it was not necessary to do this by hand. One does not want to dismiss any of the present staff, because they would probably find it difficult to get other jobs, but I hope that we shall consider having these boilers stoked from hoppers.
We also visited the sick bay, which was extremely well supplied, and I am glad to say that there were not many boys in it at the time. We saw the operating theatre, and I understand it is not now in use, because, quite rightly, the boys are sent to the local hospital, the facilities of which are made available through the Air Ministry. It occurred to me that it is a great waste to leave this very adequate and expensive apparatus in the operating theatre, but I was told that it had no market value. If that is so, I suggest to my hon. Friend that it might well be given to a missionary society or some other voluntary society which could make real use of it, perhaps for the benefit of world refugees, or some other body which could make use of the apparatus.
If I may mention one other point which seems rather trivial, on going round the grounds I saw a large number of trees marked with crosses, and on making inquiries about them I was informed that a great number were to be cut down. I agree that any tree which is dangerous should be cut down, but I hope that in the interests of the grounds no trees will be removed where it is not absolutely necessary. I hope that they will not be cut down with a view to selling them to bring in money for the school.
We inquired particularly into the health of the boys, who looked extremely healthy, and I understand that their weights are adequate. I found that the kitchens were very difficult places in which to cook adequately. We understand that there are to be improvements, and I hope that the stoking in the middle of the kitchen will be done away with, though it appears that it would cost a very large sum of money to do so. I gather that it is about £15,000, but it seems to me to have gone up very considerably from the original estimate. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could give his views on that point.
I do not want to say anything which would alarm the parents, because the health of the boys is very good, but I should have thought that the catering officer should be given a little more generous allowance for food so as to be able to give the boys a better variety. It might not improve their health very much, but variety has its value, and I


gather that the amount given is below the average for a large number of other schools.
I should like also to refer to the question of rents, which I have mentioned before. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary has still not been able to get any extra rents from the Greenwich Hospital building. Last year, the Parliamentary Secretary said that it might be difficult to take money out of one pocket and put it in the other, but I see that this year there has been extra rent from other properties in Greenwich, and that the figure has gone up to about £2,100. I think that this will help with the pensions side of the scheme.
I notice that none of the pensions, with the exception of pensions to widows of seamen marines, have gone up. But the expenditure on those which have been increased has risen by about £1,000. Last year, I was told that the number of pensioners was 291 officers and 1,521 ratings and dependants. I should like to know how many are still being paid pensions, what is the average pension paid, and why it has been possible to increase the pension for the widows of seamen marines but it has not been possible to increase the other pensions.
I should like to follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West, about the grant from the Ministry of Education. I, also, arrived at the year 1895 and I have not been able to find any adequate explanation, but we now have 20 more boys than were at the school last year and the grant from the Ministry still remains the same. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us exactly how the grant is based. I should like to know also why the superannuation allowances are less this year and why expenditure on insurance is down by £50, though I agree that we have heard about the revaluation of the buildings. I see that last year £150 was spent on mines and £180 is to be spent this year. I should like to know what this expenditure is and how the Admiralty comes to have a connection with mines.
Finally, I join in paying tribute to those who run the school and to the two hon. Members who are on the committee and who take such a great interest in it. I hope that the school will continue to attract more boys and will establish a

fine tradition worthy of the donor of these wonderful buildings.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: About fourteen years ago I went to the Admiralty to perform the duties which are now being performed by the Parliamentary Secretary. At that time the Japanese war was still on and I thought that my duties would have to do with winning the war against Japan. I went to see the First Lord and he said to me, "The first thing you have to do is to see about the repairs to the house of the headmaster of Holbrook." I was pretty solidly brought down to earth at once. I have discovered since that not only the repairs to the headmaster's house but the whole subject of Holbrook is a fascinating though somewhat esoteric topic which is discussed regularly every year by those who are interested in it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) said that costs had risen quite considerably. I went through some of the accounts today and made a few comparisons of costs. I took the year 1950–51, which is about the last year for which we on this side of the House were responsible for the administration. As we all know, during the term of office of the present Government the cost of living has not risen. It has been kept steady and the Prime Minister has assured us that all is well in that respect and it is all very nice. Even so, I notice that the cost of running the school during this period has gone up 60 per cent., a considerable rise. The legal and surveying charges, a peculiar item and admittedly quite small at only £1,000, have gone up 66 per cent. That seems to be a considerable addition to lawyers' fees.
Most surprising of all is the fact that headquarters administration costs have risen by £11,000, or no less than 100 per cent. during this period. I can only suppose it must be something to do with Parkinson's Law. It is peculiar that there should have been a 100 per cent. rise in the cost of administration, not because of an improvement in the building, or because of better education or better pensions for the seamen, but simply because the cost of headquarters administration is greater. I should like to know why there has been this enormous increase in the cost.
As against that, I see that pensions for seamen have risen by £11,000, or only 25 per cent. That seems typical of what is happening nowadays. Costs of many things are rising, but one of the items which is not is pensions, and this is an item to which we should pay great attention because it is one of the most important of those for which the fund was set up. We want to see a rather better proportion between the costs of headquarters administration, including legal costs and the rest, and the amount of pensions paid out. I hope that there will be a decrease in the former and an increase in the latter.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) drew attention to the fact that the cost of pensions paid by this fund has not altered as much as he would like. That is an interesting point, and I shall refer to it shortly.
First, however, I wish to associate myself with what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) said about the visit which he, I and other hon. Members paid to Holbrook a fortnight ago. Through the good offices of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, whom I thank for arranging it, we were able to see a great deal of the school. It was my first visit there, and my first impression was extremely favourable. The headmaster and staff are doing a wonderful job in educating about 650 boys. They are obviously putting their hearts and souls into the job of providing as good an education as they possibly can, and they are doing it very well. I am not alone in holding this opinion. I have confirmation from quite independent educational sources that the academic reputation of Holbrook has been increasing in the past few years.
This, however, brings a problem with it. The headmaster is naturally anxious that this reputation should continue to increase, but if more boys are to receive a better and therefore longer education, since the school will hold only a certain number the problem will arise of where to put them. The only solution would seem to be to reduce the intake. I am not sure that this process of providing a consistently better and better education,

and thereby of necessity decreasing the number of boys able to be taken in, should be allowed to continue unchecked. Obviously, everyone connected with the school wants to provide the best possible education, but not too much to the detriment of the number of boys allowed to enter. I should be glad if my hon. Friend could indicate the way in which his mind is working, because this may become a great problem.
After one visit of so short a duration it is not possible to make detailed criticisms as to possible improvements, but I want to take up one point which has already been mentioned by two speakers, namely, the question of catering. It is obvious that something drastic needs to be done here. On several occasions in the past the House has been told that it will be done, but it still has not been done.
There is provision in the Estimates for this year for a considerable increase in the amount devoted to the maintenance of buildings. I think the increase is about £6,000 over the figure for last year. I should like to know whether this money is to be used for the work on the kitchens which is so necessary to help to improve the level of catering.
I wish to ask about two small matters connected with the Accounts, and there are two questions on policy which I wish to raise. In page 5 of the Accounts superannuation allowances are mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) commented on the fact that they have gone up, and she asked why. I wish to ask why they have not gone down more. We were told last year by the then Parliamentary Secretary:
The superannuation is a specially high figure this year because there are, as it happens, a large number of people who are reaching retiring age and we have to make provision for them.
The Parliamentary Secretary continued:
There is every likelihood that the figure will be about half next year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1958; vol. 592, c. 171.]
Well, the figure is not about half, and I should like to know why.
My second point refers to the cost of headquarters administration. I see from page 6 of the Accounts that office expenses have more than doubled over the last twelve months. They were


£1,000 last year and this year the figure is £2,270. I wish to know why. It may perhaps be because of the appearance under this heading, for the first time, so far as I know, of the word "rent". Is it the case that the Admiralty is charging Greenwich rent for the first time? If so, is that necessary?
My first policy point concerns the size of the pensions which the fund is able to award to officers, ratings and widows. I do not know how long ago the size of the normal pension was fixed, but I believe that at present it is about £50 a year for officers, £40 a year for ratings and somewhat less for widows. These are very small amounts. If they were fixed many years ago, obviously they represented a considerable award to the beneficiaries at that time, but in present-day terms they are not very good and not nearly of as much help as I suspect they used to be.
In these days when the State takes greater care of people in need, would it not be more sensible to reduce by a gradual process the number of pensions paid, and to increase the amount? I am not, of course, suggesting that anyone at present in receipt of a pension should have it taken away; but, as a policy, would it not be better to spend the money by paying a smaller number of larger pensions?
My second point relates to the everlasting question, which must be a great difficulty to the Parliamentary Secretary, of the proper balance to be struck between the cost of maintaining Holbrook School and the money which has to be set aside for pensions. I do not know how this balance has altered over the years, but, so far as I can tell from the Accounts, the present gross cost of the school appears to be £200,000 and the gross cost of the pensions paid by the fund about £80,000. The actual cost of the school is a little less because fees are charged. With the increasing standard of comfort, food, education, clothing and so on at the school, it seems likely that over the next few years we shall be faced with rising costs.
Obviously, there is a limit to the amount of fees which can be charged, and therefore my hon. Friend will continue to be faced with this difficulty. How much should he allow the school

to improve at the cost of the pensions, or how much should he hold on to for pensions while allowing the school to manage with what it has got? I am not at all sure that it would not be better, as a policy, to concentrate on providing the best possible for the school and to use what money remains for pensions, rather than to say that a certain amount of money must be set aside for pensions, that that amount cannot be altered, and that the school must make do with the balance. In the long run, I believe it would be better to make certain that the school has what it needs and to use the balance, which obviously we hope will be as large as possible, for pensions.
On this matter I should be particularly glad to hear a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, as it is important in any decision about the policy of this school in the future. After my visit to the school recently. I am confident that everyone connected with the school is doing a first-class job and making extremely good provision for the education and care of the sons of seafaring men. I wish them every success in the future.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: The hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) has raised very iteresting points about the distribution of the funds and the way in which they are spent. With the development of the Welfare State and the many improvements that have been made for the benefit of officers and men in the Services the importance if these funds and similar pension funds becomes less. That ought to be the guiding principle in administering the funds. That would mean what I think the hon. Gentleman really wanted, that we should get more for the school in the course of time. That is probably inevitable.
Like my hon. Friends, I express my appreciation of the kindness shown to us when we visited the school a fortnight ago. I would agree with most of the things that have been said about the school, but there is no doubt that the kitchen ought to be re-equipped. Why the Government should hestitate to do this I cannot imagine. Already, largely as a result of hesitation by the Government the estimated cost of improvement has increased from about £9,000 to


£15,000. It is a peculiar kind of economy to delay for four or five years something that needs to be done, with the result that the ultimate cost is much greater than the original cost would have been. That seems false economy.
I agree with many things that were said by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) about comfort at the school, which struck me as being rather stern in many ways. I should like to have seen more comfort in the reading rooms and in the dormitories. I have not had experience of running a school of this character, but that improvement struck me as desirable.
What also struck me, as more important than this aspect, was something quite different. Here is a school with 650 pupils. I do not think that there can be any doubt about those pupils' interest in science. Provision for the teaching of science could be greatly improved, and so could the scientific equipment. If a comprehensive school of this character, for 650 boys, were built today, it would have far better laboratories than are at this training school. That is important, in view of the vocations that the boys have in mind. Some will go to Dartmouth, some to university and some will become artificer apprentices. Others will do various engineering and technical jobs. This shortcoming should be tackled quickly. Possibly this is a matter of expense, like the provision of more comfort for the boys and of kitchen re-equipment.
I make this small point, in passing. I wonder whether, when the statement of estimated income and expenditure is presented in future, we could have the past year's costs put alongside the present estimated costs. We have the statement on page 2, but nowhere else and the result is that it is exceedingly difficult, without looking up past reports, to follow what the trend is. It does not seem that it would require a great deal of expense and bother to put the figures alongside so that we might compare the various amounts spent.
In previous debates I have expressed doubts about the position of orphan children. A week or two ago I asked a Question about the increasing number of officers' children attending the school. So far as I have been able to discover, the provisions governing the entrance of

children do protect the orphans and children of seamen. After a long time, a matter of years, I have come to the conclusion that that is protected, but it does not alter the fact that, because of other circumstances, increasingly this tends to become a school for the children of officers.

Commander J. W. Maitland: Commander J. W. Maitland (Horncastle) indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: The hon. and gallant Member shakes his head, but if he would study the figures which I got in the reply to my Question two weeks ago, he would find that what I am saying is correct.
In view of the fact that fewer applications are made on behalf of orphans for quite natural reasons—as we get further away from war fewer applications are made in respect of the children of seamen, as probably the seamen are better off and may have a wider choice of schools for their children—this tendency arises. The figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary confirmed that. I do not blame anyone for that; I think that it is inevitable as things develop, but it means that this increasingly becomes a school for the sons of officers. It would be deplorable if that were to happen. It seems that with fees ranging to about £60 or £70 a year and with the great pressure for money to spend at this school there are circumstances which help to create an environment in which this situation is brought about. That seems wrong and the Government ought to look at this school again, not with a view to making small changes but rather larger changes.
Having given a considerable amount of thought over a long period to the question of fees, I should like to see them reduced. In fact, I should like to see them abolished and the sum required to balance the accounts made up, not by the Admiralty, but by the Department of Education, the Secretary of State for Scotland. Why not? Here is a school taking 650 boys and giving them a very fine education. It is a school beautifully situated and providing an excellent service for the sons of men who served in the Navy. It costs about £155,000, towards which the Ministry of Education contributes £1,400. What a generous gesture on the part of the Minister!
I think that it is quite wrong. The school gets nothing at all from the Secretary of State for Scotland. Yet there are Scottish as well as English boys at the school, and they are being educated at a standard equal to that of any education authority school. I think that it ought to receive a grant from the Department of Education for Scotland.

Mr. Atkins: Is not that part of the sum of money that is called fees paid by the local education authority?

Mr. Willis: I agree that part of it is paid by the local education authority, but that is not by the Department of the Secretary of State nor is it by the Ministry of Education. It is paid by the local ratepayers and not by the taxpayers.
What is wrong with the taxpayers paying for this school? It seems to me to be eminently desirable. It is a good school, well-situated and providing a first-class education for boys. Why should not the taxpayers pay for it? Why should we leave it to a system of fee payments? I do not know the answer. One result of that is that the desirable improvements talked about in this debate cannot be done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) pointed out in great detail in opening the debate, there is no money for improvements. The school could not modernise its kitchen years ago.
The hon. Lady the Member for Devon-port wanted rather better and more varied diet for the boys. It cannot be done, because the money is not there. I have suggested that the school needs better scientific laboratories and equipment. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) would agree. He is on the board. We cannot get them. Yet most of these boys are going into the professions and vocations requiring that type of training. The money is not there. How do the Government propose to get the money? We have never had any answer to this
It is obvious that we are reaching the end of the amount that can be raised by fee paying, unless the fees are to be raised. I would be very much opposed to that; in fact, I want to see them decreased. I should like to see them

abolished altogether. Why does not the Admiralty face up to this and get together with the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland and say, "Here is the school; let us make some satisfactory arrangement about its future." Surely that could be done and the rights of men who have served in the Navy, whether on the lower deck or the upper deck could be safeguarded. I do not see that this is outwith the scope of some agreement being entered into between various Government Departments.
That seems to be the only way to solve the difficulties of this school, and I put the proposition to the Parliamentary Secretary in the hope that he will take it seriously, because there is no doubt that the school is worth preserving and continuing. It is doing a fine job and the teachers and others engaged at the school are also doing fine work. Let us put the school in a position in which it can do the work in the manner in which we should like it to be done, and let us provide the equipment which we should like the school to have. Let us make the best possible of this school. To do that we must do something on the lines which I have indicated.

10.11 p.m.

Commander J. W. Maitland: I assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)—and I do not think that I am giving any secrets away in doing so—that it is not for want of trying that we have failed to get money out of the Ministry of Education.

Mr. Willis: I do not blame the Committee of Management.

Commander Maitland: Those who have the privilege—and it is a privilege—of representing the House on the Committee of Management have considered, with the rest of the Committee, for whom I think I can speak, that it is our duty to provide any boy with the best education that it is possible to provide. It is not justifiable to carry on an organisation of this kind unless we can offer to any boy who is entitled to go to the school as good an education as he can get anywhere, whether he is an orphan, or the son of someone from the lower deck, or the son of an officer. It is an excellent thing to have the sons of every rank and type mingling together and being


educated together, in a school of this sort, and to have these boys from many different homes working together.
Speaking personally, I did not agree at the time, and I still do not agree, with the decision about the payment of fees, because I have always believed that we should not charge fees at this school. I have always been quite firm and steady on that point, although I see that it was necessary to try to preserve as best we could the type of school which we were building up.
The debate has turned inevitably on the question of finance. The trouble about all this is that we are dealing with an Act of Parliament which is about seventy-four years old. What we are talking about is all contained in an Act of Parliament which at that time provided a capital sum which, frankly, is fast running out. We cannot provide the standards which we should like to provide unless we draw on capital—and here, too, I am speaking only for myself. The Act allows us to draw on capital. We are enjoined to do so if we do not meet our expenses out of income. That means, however, and always will mean, that the capital is diminished. It also means that we must reduce the number of pensions, which it is laid down by the Act of Parliament that we must provide and which are very important.
The position is not satisfactory when we can expect, as the building gets older, greater expenses on maintenance and when we, also have to try to add to the amenities and to the additional science facilities which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned and which we must have if we are to keep pace with the needs of the boys.
Perhaps not today or tomorrow, but quite soon, we shall have to face the fact that this Act, which is seventy-four years old, must be completely revised. I believe that this will be one of the greatest schools in England before it is finished and that it will rank with Manchester Grammar School and any of the other great public schools in the country. If we are to carry on that tradition we must accept that possibly sooner than later this Act passed seventy-four years ago will have to be amended and brought up to date and an entirely new arrangement made to allow this school

to continue the good work which I believe the whole House agrees that it is doing at present.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Of the thirteen or fourteen debates on this subject to which I have listened, this evening's has been the most interesting and the most delightful. Delightful, because the excitement that the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) and myself have felt about this school has obviously spread to those on both sides of the House who have had the chance to see it for the first time; interesting, because speaker after speaker has pressed for still more improvements in the facilities offered—science, better feeding, more comfort in the dormitories and so forth, all of which will cost money.
There have been two suggestions about how we might raise more money. One from the other side of the House that I treated with the greatest reserve was that we should cut down on pensions. I do not think that that is right at all. The other, which was pressed most vigorously by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), was that the cash should be forthcoming from the Ministry of Education and from the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I think that my hon. Friend's suggestion must be the solution. There is not the slightest doubt that the costs of this school will increase, because the quality and standard of education in it will advance—and I hope that no hon. Member will attempt to stop that advance. Because the standard will increase, because the costs will increase, and because the revenues of the Greenwich Hospital are limited, we shall be forced back on some other way of financing the school.
I beg my hon. Friends—and, indeed, all hon. Members—not to go bashing at the Admiralty or the management committee on this. The fault lies with the Ministry of Education—the fault, indeed, lies with ourselves. If we believe, as we have been saying tonight, that this is a good school that deserves well of the country, it is our job as Members of the House of Commons so to browbeat the Ministry of Education that we do not have, year after year, to make these complaints that the school is not doing its job properly.
I therefore appeal to both sides of the House that in this matter we should form a united front to make quite certain that the Ministry of Education which, in the past, has been so backward in coming forward, is pressed into doing its proper duty towards this school.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) for his kindly remarks about a newcomer to the job, and to say, as I have no doubt many of my predecessors have said, that this is a slightly unusual facet of any junior Minister's task but, in many ways, that makes it the more intriguing.
Until I took on my present post, I had not seen the school, and like so many who have spoken in this debate I was really enthralled once I had seen the wonderful building, the wonderful grounds and the whole spirit emanating from the school, which, I thought, inspired the boys both in the vigour of their life and, incidentally, in their academic achievements. The questions that have been raised this evening have mainly concerned finance, and I shall try to deal with them one by one.
We have to remember that when founded in October, 1694, the primary concern of the Greenwich Hospital Foundation—and, after all, that is very much bigger than the school itself—was with the welfare of sea-going men themselves and though, to some extent, as hon. Members have said, the Welfare State and better conditions of active service have removed some of the hardships formerly suffered by seamen, there are many cases of hardship in which Greenwich Hospital pensions still come as a great comfort to humble people. We should be doing less than justice to these people, and incidentally to the founders of this institution, if we started to rob those pension funds and to give the moneys to the school, however much enthusiasm we all feel for this magnificent school.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the differences between income and expenditure. The Foundation's gross income has increased from £270,000 in 1954 to £344,000 in the present estimate. We have made improvements by re-

investment and re-letting properties. By all manner of means we have tried to shelter ourselves from the rising costs.
As the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West said, the main rises in expenditure this year come from £5,000 extra on the salaries, and those are largely linked with the Burnham scale. I know that the House would not quarrel with those grants. The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was quantity or quality. It is largely quality. A sixth form cannot be introduced into a school and the academic results which I shall summarise later cannot be obtained unless a school has teachers of the highest quality. The results obtained reflect the improvement we have made in that direction.
The other increased sum is £6,000 extra for maintenance. As hon. Gentlemen have said, these things have been postponed in the past. Essential work has been put off. We all do it in our own houses. One is tempted, as the governing body has done, to put it off until next year and to say that something else is more important. This year we are having to tackle arrears of maintenance. That has added greatly to our bill.

Mr. Willis: The kitchens have not been improved.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I shall deal with the kitchens later. So many hon. Gentlemen have mentioned the kitchens that I thought they might have a section to themselves.
On fees, I should be less than frank with the House if I did not tell hon. Members this. I am sorry that I did not announce earlier that the £23,000 which was the forecast income last year rises in these estimates to £38,400 and to £50,000 next year. That is the way we bridge the gap, by raising the fees from £72 to £100.

Mr. Willis: Shocking.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I want to make clear why we have done this. The governing body thought about it very carefully. We do not take action like that without the most mature consideration. We did it because, if we did not take that action, we should be robbing the pensioners. I have figures here. The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale),


who once held my office, will probably know these figures. I have the figures right back to the year when he had the responsibility. Seventy-three per cent. of the net expenditure of our global income from the Greenwich Hospital Foundation at the end of the war was going to the school and 27 per cent. was going in pensions. At the end of a war there is, perhaps, an upset in figures. Those figures have risen. In 1946–47, when I think that the right hon. Member was Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, 77 per cent. of the income was going on the school and only 23 per cent. on pensions.
That is wrong. After all, pensions were the foundation and original thought of this wonderful charitable institution. We have now corrected it, and the contribution going to pensions has slowly increased until in the current Estimates it will be as high as 33 per cent. going to pensions and 66 per cent. going to the upkeep of the school. This is a move in the right direction. The pensions cannot be neglected. It may be said that it is only a small sum, but it is a small sum which makes a tremendous difference to an elderly widow or a deserving person.

Mr. Dugdale: There is only one correction which one must make in that figure. The sum spent on the school is that much less by the sum derived from an increase in fees.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: No doubt it is. I do not deny that. I am saying that we are not robbing the charitable foundation of so much as we were in the right hon. Gentleman's time. The general tenor is that we should not neglect the pensions. They are very important.
I repeat what my predecessors have said. I have been through these figures. I have examined the gentleman who applies the questions and asks parents what they can afford. I have questioned and queried to the utmost, and I can give the House my absolute assurance that in no case where a parent qualifies will entry to a boy be denied because the parent cannot afford the fees. In no case will that occur. That seems to me to be the criterion which the House should wish to apply in deciding whether to put up the fees to bridge the gap.
May I turn to this question of trying to squeeze more money out of the

Ministry of Education? My predecessors, if I may put it vulgarly, have had a "bash" on this very issue for many years but they have not had much change out of the Ministry of Education. It appears that this small sum of £1,400 is a legacy dating back to 1895 and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it has hardly changed since that date. I will do my best and will make representations, but I fear that instead of getting even a small sum they may say, "This is an outdated legacy of the past and you will not get anything at all in the future." However, I hope that will not occur, and I shall certainly make representations.

Mr. Steele: Has the Parliamentary Secretary any information on why it was given in the first place?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: No. I am afraid that, like the hon. Gentleman, I have been unable to trace the reason. It seems a most obscure matter. In this particular case the Estimates were not even debated.

Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman also approach the Secretary of State for Scotland, who seems quite delighted to give sums of money to all sorts of direct grant schools in Scotland, and ascertain whether he can make a contribution? After all, there are a lot of boys from Scotland.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will examine the history of the case. It was probably taken up by the right hon. Member for West Bromwich when he was in my place and he got no change whatsoever out of the Ministry of Education. Although i will mention it, I cannot hold out any hopes that I will achieve much more than my ten predecessors in this task.
On the subject of the boys' privacy, which was mentioned by several hon. Members, we will look at this with the Board of Management to see whether there is any hardship. I have checked this matter, and I know that there is nothing to forbid boys putting up photographs of their parents if they wish to do so, but it appears that this is not now the done thing. I should like to see it become the done thing, because I think it adds to the humanity of a dormitory. I hope that all the boys are proud of their parents and are glad to have them displayed.
I can assure the House that when a tree is cut down this is only done after


the most expert advice either for reasons of safety or turnover. After all, we have to have new young trees growing, and old trees have to be cut down from time to time. We must make sure that the balance of forestry in the area is correct. We certainly will not wilfully cut down a tree if this destroys the beauty of the place, and we will take the best advice, as we always do. I would add that I take note of the point which has been made about the automatic stoker and the operating theatre.
May I turn to the question of kitchens which was mentioned by a number of hon. Members? It is true that the estimate which we now have before us, and which is not included in this estimate except to a small extent, is £15,000. We, as the Board of Management, and myself as Chairman, have laid down that we should make a start on modernising these kitchens this year, though it will only be to the extent of a few hundred pounds. Three more phases will follow and the whole job, I am afraid, will probably take three years because it is a big task, but it is infinitely worth while.
We have given priority to the preparation of fresh vegetables. We feel that this is something which could well be tackled first. It will not cost a lot of money, and, when we asked the advice of the county education authority expert on feeding in schools he drew attention to that particular aspect of our arrangements and referred to a certain lack of fresh vegetables. This, therefore, has priority, and the rest of the task of modernising the kitchens and, indeed, the dining hall, will be tackled with zest.
The right hon. Member for West Bromwich spoke about expenditure on the school. I cannot help arraigning him a little on this, because, when he took office, the expenditure on the school was £86,000, and, when his party departed, expenditure was £140,000. By good fortune, I happen to have all the figures here. He was far less successful in holding down rising costs than successive Parliamentary Secretaries on this side of the House. Moreover, when he took office, £31,000 was being spent on pensions. Now, we are spending no less than £81,000 on pensions—a two-and-a-half-fold increase. That is not a bad result.
Hon. Members asked me to say what ought to be the balance in this matter of pensions. I do not want to commit the future on it. I shall take note of the views which have been put from both sides of the House. I would suggest that not less than 33 per cent. ought to be spent on pensions at present, the remainder going to the school. That is about what we are spending now. I do not want to tie the future. After all, the Welfare State is spreading, and the need for pensions may be decreased. It would be unwise to commit my successors in this task.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) dealt with the numbers of pupils and he asked how we would cope with them. I have considered the numbers. Before the war, there were 860 pupils in this school, in the very same buildings that we have today. Partly as a result of war-time conditions and air-raid precautions the numbers were reduced to about 600, and they have now risen to 660. There might be a temptation to go back to the 800, but I think that that would be a mistake. After all, twenty years have passed since 1939, and we wish to set a standard of accommodation in classrooms, laboratories, dormitories and houses which is slightly better and gives rather more room for recreation and play. It would be wrong to try to crowd in the same number of pupils as we had in the 1939 era.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the hon. Gentleman say anything about the 100 per cent. rise in costs of administration?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, I shall. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned it. I looked at the cost of administration. It has gone up, but it is not just the cost of administration of the school. It includes the administration of the northern estate and the reletting of it, the administration of property in the Greenwich Hospital area and in the West End of London. The figure is 7 per cent. of the total income. I have compared this with administration expenses in other similar organisations, and in many of them the proportion is higher. I do not think we compare at all badly, with a 7 per cent. administration cost on the whole operation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden mentioned administration, and I think I have covered that.


He asked, also, why the superannuation fee had not fallen abruptly. There was a postponement for a few months in respect of certain members of the staff who were due to retire last year but who did not then retire. What has happened is that we underspent on our estimates last year, and this estimate will be a more accurate one, so far as I can see.
My hon. Friend asked why there had been an increased charge for the rental of administration offices. The answer is that we have sold our original office. We received a very good sum for it, £29,000, and that sum has been invested to help our income. We rent an office, and the whole operation has improved our finances to the extent of £500 a year. On the whole, I think that this is to the advantage of the school and the Greenwich Hospital Foundation. I have tried to deal with the main points which my hon. Friend made. He referred also to maintenance, and I think I dealt with that broadly when discussing the kitchen. I will certainly write to him on any other points which I may have omitted.
I was interested in the views of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and I shall read his speech very carefully. I absolutely agree that it is difficult to compare last year's estimates with this year's, and I will see whether we can have them printed alongside each other, as is done in respect of many other Estimates for the convenience of the House.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked whether we thought we were right—I think he was opposed to the idea—in arranging that 20 per cent. of the pupils in the school should be officers' sons.

Mr. Willis: I am not opposed to the idea. The trend I noticed was the increasing number, and I think it is that which we ought to watch.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: All I would say is that we will watch this, with the Board of Management, most carefully, but one has to face the fact that if one has a comprehensive school it has to cover all categories of people.
We cannot say that we want a comprehensive school, as the hon. Gentleman called it, and then say that we will

exclude officers' sons. Many of those sons are sons of Special Duties officers, who themselves came from the lower deck. So I would say that we do not want to commit anyone for the future, but that we will see that the trend does not become too widespread. I think that, on the whole, it is healthy for everybody in the school that officers' and ratings' sons should be mixed in a school of this sort, bringing them together so that they get to know one another.

Mr. Willis: The point is that the circumstances of the school, namely, its desperate need for money, which has compelled the Board to raise the fees to £100, seems to me to create conditions in which there might be a tendency towards what I spoke of as the growth in the number of officers' children, with long-term results which I should not like to see and which, I think, the House would not like to see. That is what I said we should watch very carefully.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will consider that point. We will certainly watch it most carefully.
Before I come to the points made by the two Members who are members of the Committee of Management I will deal with a point I have left out in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden. At the moment there are 333 widows drawing an average of 10s. a week, which would account for some £10,000. In the Seamen's and Marines' Special Fund the present average is about 15s. a week, There are 1,000 drawing on it, which accounts for about £44,000. Of the officers the great majority, 234 officers, are receiving £50, a £1 a week pension, which accounts for about £13,000.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) asked whether it was necessary to keep this, as he called it, rather outdated method of debating these estimates. I asked myself. It seems it affords the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, who very seldom speaks from this Box, an opportunity for a little practice. I am not sure, in view of what we discussed yesterday, the streamlining of the procedure of the House, whether this is the sort of thing which should be discussed on the Floor of the House, interesting as it is for those who are concerned.
I have looked at the 1885 Act, and I find that it laid down that as long as that was in vogue the Estimates should be debated in this House, although the income comes entirely from a charitable foundation. Therefore, one would expect that, like other charitable funds which do not have to be laid, this should not be done. I think that we could certainly look at this. Obviously, it would require some small replacing Act.

Commander Maitland: My point was not quite that. It was that the running of the school is carried out under an Act of Parliament which is seventy-five years old and that we shall not really get success till we have replaced that Act to try to put this school on a much more sensible basis, as has been indicated by the tone of this debate.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will certainly look at that point. I have not found myself that that Act inhibits the administration or good management of the school or the running of the Committee of Management. However, I will look at that aspect. I should like to thank my hon. and gallant Friend, in passing. He is one of the oldest members of the Management Committee—almost the oldest living member. This has meant a great deal of voluntary work, and I should like to thank him and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) for the time they have given and the trips they have made to the school and for the sympathy with which they have advised successive Parliamentary Secretaries on this task.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East again felt that we should have to examine the general fundamental finance of the school. We will certainly give most careful consideration to that matter and we may, perhaps, have an opportunity of discussing it.
Finally, may I say—and I think that the House will be with me in this—that we judge the school by the results which are being achieved not only in the academic field, but in the sporting field and in the character-building field as well. In the General Certificate of Examinations held in 1958, a total of 48 candidates gained between them nine subject passes at advanced level and 147 at odinary level. As a result of these successes at the advanced level, two boys were awarded county major awards and proceeded to university. Two others secured Royal Naval cadetships at Dartmouth. Of the 121 boys leaving the school during 1958, 52 entered the Royal Navy and five the Merchant Navy. Thus, 47 per cent. adopted a seafaring life. Five of the remainder entered service in Her Majesty's dockyards and four joined the Royal Air Force.
Before concluding my remarks on the Royal Hospital School, I should like to add my tribute to those that have been paid in previous years by my predecessors to the valuable service which is rendered by the Committee of Management and, in particular, on this occasion, by the two Parliamentary Members, the hon. Member for Hudderfield, East and the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle, who have both served on the Committee for a long period of years most devotedly and have given great support to successive Parliamentary Secretaries. I will certainly pass on the congratulations of so many hon. Members to the headmaster, his wife and the staff for the task they are performing in one of the best schools in the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year ending on 31st March, I960, which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.

PROBATION OFFICERS AND CLERKS (SUPERANNUATION)

10.43 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I beg to move,
That the Probation Officers and Clerks (Superannuation) (Amendment) Regulations, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.
These Regulations amend Part III of the Probation Officers and Clerks (Superannuation) Regulations, 1954, which applied the provisions of the Local Act Superannuation Scheme administered by the L.C.C. to probation officers and clerks in the Metropolitan police court area.
This amendment is necessary for the purely technical reason that the L.C.C.—under powers taken in the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1957—has adopted a new consolidated superannuation scheme, and, accordingly, Part III of the 1954 Regulations, which applied the former schemes, will no longer be appropriate.
The amending Regulations, like the new consolidated scheme itself, make no changes of substance. They apply the new scheme for the benefit of probation officers and clerks, with certain necessary modifications.
These Regulations have been drafted in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the L.C.C, and the Staff Consultative Council of the London Probation Service, and they represent an agreed measure.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I do not think that our business can compete in human interest with that which preceded it, but we can certainly set an example of streamlined precision. I have nothing to add to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, except to say that this is an agreed Measure against which no possible criticism could be directed, and that I have pleasure in supporting it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Probation Officers and Clerks (Superannuation) (Amendment) Regulations, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.

ELECTRICITY (STAFF COMPENSATION)

10.46 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move,
That the Electricity (Staff Compensation) Regulations, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.
I would suggest that it might be for the convenience of the House if we discussed, at the same time, the following Regulations:
That the South of Scotland Electricity Board (Staff Compensation) Regulations, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: They both seem to me to be on the same lines.

Mr. Alfred Robens: Mr. Alfred Robens (Blyth) indicated assent.

Mr. Speaker: Very well.

Mr. Macpherson: The Scottish Regulations made jointly by my noble Friend the Minister of Power and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the other Regulations made by the Minister, follow very much the same lines. The Scottish Regulations arise out of the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry in the South of Scotland in 1955, and the other Regulations arise because of the changes effected in England and Wales by the Electricity Act, 1957. Both sets of Regulations are broadly similar in form and are framed on the same principles.
They are based partly on the Electricity (Staff Compensation) Regulations, 1949, which were made in consequence of the requirements of the Electricity Act, 1947, and partly on the more recent code of compensation which was applied in the changes in the steel and road haulage industries in 1953. They have been prepared following discussion with the trade unions involved, and I should like to acknowledge the very helpful comments made and the spirit of cooperation which has inspired them. In particular, the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) has been most assiduous in safeguarding the interests of his members and, as always, most courteous.
I do not think that the House would wish me to go over the Regulations in any great detail. They are designed, firstly, to provide "resettlement compensation" for loss of employment lasting thirteen weeks or, in the case of older men, up to a maximum of twenty-six weeks. This can be followed if necessary by "long-term compensation," which is payable where there is loss of employment, or where there is loss or diminution of emoluments or of pension rights, or where there is a worsening of a man's conditions of service as a whole. Claims for long-term compensation must be made not later than two years after the date of occurrence of the cause of the claim, or from the first date on which the claimant could reasonably have known of the occurrence, or within six months of the coming into operation of the Regulations, whichever is the later. The Regulations are thus fully retrospective. I hope that, with this very short account, the House will be prepared to approve them.

Mr. William Ross: Could the hon. Gentleman give us an adequate explanation why it has taken so long to present the Scottish Regulations which arise out of an Act passed in 1954?

Mr. Macpherson: There have been very complicated discussions, as the hon. Member for Cleveland will know, for he has pressed us on this matter on several occasions, but we have managed to get them completed now.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I do not intend to speak for very long at this stage of the night but, as the Joint Under-Secretary has been good enough to mention, I can speak on this matter with some fairly intimate knowledge of the consultations which have taken place between the Scottish Department, the Ministry of Power, the trade unions and the staff associations. I think I can say that the trade unions representing all grades of employees in the electricity supply industry in both England and Scotland would wish to pay tribute to the helpful way in which they have been taken into consultation by the Departments. At the same time, I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member

for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that the Scottish Regulations have been a very long time coming. It would not be fair perhaps for me to mention just when the consultations with the trade unions were concluded in relation to Scotland, but the hon. Member must know that it was quite some time ago.
The unions have been able to put up constructive suggestions for the improvement of the Regulations on one or two points of principle, and also a number of points for improved drafting, but it would be wrong to suggest that every point raised by them has been conceded, or that they feel that everything is now perfect. I would make one comment in that respect, in a most charitable spirit. It seems to me that in both Departments in these days there is far too much leaning on precedents. Far too often, when the unions have tried to push the Departments a little further in the light of changing circumstances, they have been told, "This reflects the policy of successive Governments."
It is quite a time since the first major post-war precedent was laid down in this matter of electricity supply compensation. I refer to the Regulations arising out of the nationalisation Act of 1947. It is not always sensible therefore to answer the unions coming forward with new and perhaps substantial points of principle by the argument that so-and-so has been the practice of successive Governments. That argument cannot be put up for ever, because times and methods change. I think that the Labour Government did a very good job with the Regulations under the Act of 1947, although I was a little critical even then of some aspects of them, but to suppose that even those Regulations, good as they then were, are necessarily a model for all time would be stretching things too far.
I have three general points to raise. The electricity supply industry in the United Kingdom is an expanding one, in respect of which the unions would agree that we would not expect to see very much redundancy or loss of employment as a result of reorganisation. It is quite likely that the electricity boards of Scotland and England and Wales will be able, as a matter of everyday practice, to provide new employment for those who are displaced. But that is not to


say that there will not be now some compensation claims under the terms of the legislation. One cannot say.
The great difficulty is to distinguish between the loss of employment, or diminution of emoluments, arising directly from the effect of the legislation, and that which might come about anyhow because of the normal process of everyday change. That is a matter for the tribunal and, finally, under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 1957, for the courts of law. We now have the statutory right of appeal to the courts themselves. This was one of the Opposition's suggestions in Committee.
I also agree that, on the whole, the compensation provisions are reasonably generous. On balance, they are more generous than those normally paid in private industry, although not on the same princely scale, of course, as the compensation that is sometimes given, according to the newspapers, to those directors of brewery companies who are so fortunate as to be the reluctant victims of take-over bids. There is no compensation on that massive scale provided for in these Regulations, but on the whole I think—this is a tribute to nationalisation -that the terms are better than those normally available in private industry. That is as it should be, because if Parliament makes changes by legislation which may affect the conditions of work, pay or future prospects of employees in a great industry, then Parliament has a moral obligation to see that their interests are fully safeguarded.
Now to some points of detail. In order to obtain temporary resettlement compensation it is necessary to have three years' service and for long-term compensation, eight years' service. Sickness is not included as service. There should be some qualifying period, but the view of the unions, which I share, is that the period is too long, and I am sorry that the Minister has not shortened it. It is also a bit hard that sickness should be excluded. I should have thought it sufficient if the contract of service was still in existence.
Any disturbance giving rise to a claim must have occurred within ten years. After that period it is irrelevant. I dislike a limiting period. After all, there is

always the safeguard in a case for compensation that it is still necessary for the employee to argue successfully that the loss he suffered arose out of the provisions of the Act and was not the natural result of normal change. I should have thought that sufficient without a limiting period of ten years.
We all agree, I think, that other employment for displaced employees is preferable to cash compensation, however generous. That is certainly the view of the unions. The recent trend of electricity legislation, from which I do not greatly dissent, has been to decentralise. There is now a sharper distinction between the generation side and the distribution side under the provisions of the 1957 Act. England has also been divided electrically from Scotland by the 1954 Act.
Although that is the trend of recent Government legislation, when it comes to the question of alternative employment the industry is still treated as one throughout the United Kingdom. If I may give a possible if exaggerated case, it means that if an employee of the South-West Electricity Board, working near Land's End, loses his job as a result of the legislation, if other employment cannot be found for him within his own Board and if he is told that there is a job available in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board near John o' Groats, then if it is a comparable job he must take it or he will not receive compensation. That is an extreme case, maybe, but is it not going a little too far to say that an employee must take any other job offered to him, irrespective of where it is?
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us why there has been a change in the wording of the Regulations since 1949. These present Regulations read:
no account shall be taken of the fact that the duties of the employment offered involve a transfer of the claimant's employment from one place to another place in Great Britain.
The 1949 Regulations, arising out of the 1947 Electricity Act, read:
shall not be held not to be suitable or reasonable by reason only of the difference of employer or place.
The trade union view, I know, is that the words of the 1949 Regulations are more flexible. I should be glad to have an explanation of the change.
Finally, it may be that we are all to blame, but it seems extraordinary that in order to provide compensation we have to have sixteen intricate pages of delegated legislation. I suppose that it is inescapable but it is curious, nevertheless, and I wonder whether it would not be simpler to give wide general powers to the electricity boards telling them to pay compensation but leaving it to their natural fair judgment and to the unions to negotiate the terms. That is purely a personal suggestion. Yet notice the ease with which the boards can dispose of vast sums of money according to their commercial judgment—and I do not quarrel with that—and contrast with that freedom the careful and detailed control which Parliament insists on using over relatively small sums of compensation to employees.
The Parliamentary Secretary may say that this contradicts in part what I said earlier about the obligations of Parliament, but I am feeling my way forward and suggesting that it is curious that we have to have these pages of intricate legislation in order to pay careful compensation to possibly displaced employees when it could be better left perhaps to the normal just practice of the good employer and to the organised strength of the trade unions representing the employee.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Will the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland say another word or two about the Scottish Regulations? How many people does he believe are affected by the Regulations? We are providing for compensation for loss of employment for those people who lost their employment as a consequence of the passage of the 1954 Act.
Did anyone lose his job as a result of the merging of the South-West and the South-East Electricity Boards, and the taking over by the Secretary of State for Scotland of the responsibility of the Minister of Fuel and Power for electricity generation in the South of Scotland? It is very odd to read Regulation 6, which lays down:
The Board shall, subject to the provisions of these regulations, pay resettlement compensation to every person to whom Regulation 3

applies and who claims such compensation and in relation to whom the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say … he has made his claim for resettlement compensation in accordance with the provisions for making claims set out in Part V of these regulations before the end of his resettlement period or of thirteen weeks from the date of coming into operation of these regulations, whichever is the later.
That means that if any employee lost his job in consequence of the 1954 Act he is now told that he has to make his claim for compensation from the vesting date or from the making of these Regulations.
Were there any such people? I rather think that there were not any such persons who lost their employment because of the Scottish Act of 1954. Indeed, if there were, it would be unreasonable, Parliament having taken care to write in Section 12 of the Act, which provides for the making of Regulations for the payment of compensation, if nothing had been done to give effect to Parliament's undertaking. I therefore assume that no one at all has been affected.
Or is it possible that people can yet lose their employment in consequence of the passage of the 1954 Act? If so, can the Joint Under-Secretary tell us how it can happen? In any case, loss of employment, diminution of emoluments and loss or diminution of pension rights being the three main categories provided for by these Regulations, did the Under-Secretary mean in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that it has taken five years to negotiate these provisions with the trade unions?
Did they not start those negotiations until after the English Act of 1957 was passed—three years after the passage of the Scottish Act? Did the Scottish discussions have to wait on the English discussions on an Act passed three years after the Scottish Act? I must say that unless the hon. Gentleman can give a satisfactory explanation we shall regard the whole business as rather fishy.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: The Joint Under-Secretary tried to get away with open robbery tonight. But for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) we would


not have known anything at all of what the Regulations really meant. The hon. Gentleman made no proper effort to explain the circumstances in which we have these Regulations presented to us only now, when they arise out of an obligation laid down in an Act of 1954 in which the vesting day to which the claims relate was 1st April, 1955. We should have a more adequate explanation of these delays.
The result of these delays is that we get into all this tangle of people now finding out just exactly what their rights are, and the question of whether or not anyone is affected, and the suggestion that people now have to make application not later than two years after the first date on which they could reasonably have known of the occurrence—the termination of the loss of employment, and so on, or within six months of the coming into operation of the Regulations, whichever is the later. I might add that I have not the slightest doubt that the six months is bound to be the later in this case.
I am primarily interested in what is to be considered in determining what is referred to as "long-term compensation". I should like to draw attention to paragraph 14. At the beginning it is stated that one of the factors
For the purpose of determining whether long-term compensation for loss or diminution of emoluments or worsening of position should be awarded to a claimant …
shall be this or that.
Then, paragraph (c), it is stated that one of the relevant factors shall be
the extent to which he has sought suitable employment and the emoluments which he has or might have acquired by accepting other suitable employment, including retraining offered to him; 
What I want to ask is whether we could be given a limiting definition of what is "suitable employment". How is it to be determined? Secondly, there is "accepting other suitable employment". Is that limited to suitable employment offered by the British electricity industry, be it in England or in Scotland? What does it mean? This is important.
Then, we get the all-saving grace of paragraph (g), which refers to
all the other circumstances of his case".
It would not be wrong to ask what this means. I suppose it means nothing unless

related to a particular case, but I think that it will be agreed that it is rather wide. Personally, I would question a condition of such vagueness when so much depends upon it for the individual.
I could say a lot more about this, but will resist the temptation, although I hope that we shall be told something by the Joint Under Secretary of State. I hope that he will appreciate that when presenting these important Regulations he ought to try to explain what they mean, because they are not in very simple form or language.
There is only one other point I wish to make. Admittedly, these are draft Regulations, but I notice that they are signed by somebody who styles himself "One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State". I presume that that is the Secretary of State for Scotland; but below that there appears "Minister of Power", although there is no signature. I thought that we had got rid of that gentleman under the terms of the 1954 Act and that, in relation to the employment and supervision of personnel in Scotland, the person to whom we had to address questions was the Secretary of State.
Now we appear to have this joint control, and I should like to discover from one or the other who is responsible for the delay which has occurred. Is it the Secretary of State for Scotland, or the Minister of Power, or a bit of each? Will future Regulations, arising by way of some amendment to these Regulations, be presented by the Secretary of State from the purely Scottish aspect?
I understood that we were to have purely Tartan electricity and that the Minister of Power was to be out of the picture. Is his being there the reason for the quite unexplained delay in bringing these Regulations before the House?

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: Perhaps it would be appropriate if I said a word or two now to enable the Parliamentary Secretary to tie up all the answers to the questions together. Obviously, we shall give these Regulations our approval, because under the circumstances in which we deal with Regulations in the House it is not possible to alter particular parts of them even if we want to.
We are dealing with Regulations that provide for three things—loss of employment, diminution of emoluments or pension rights, and those people whose positions are worsened as a result of the passing of the Act. It is right presumably, as Parliament decided in the Act which compels those responsible for the electricity industry to make certain changes, that Parliament should decide the kind of compensation that should be paid, although in the case of the mining industry we never do that.
The redundancy agreement was made as a purely commercial matter and as a matter of industrial relations between those working in the industry and those who manage the industry. There is something in what my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) has said, that perhaps when we are looking at this kind of thing again we might be ready to give some wide discretionary power to the Minister to authorise or approve an agreement that might be reached between both sides of the industry in relation to all these three matters and remove the detailed discussions from the scene of the Parliamentary debate. Had there been a large number of people involved, I think one would have wanted to spend some time in dealing with the various procedures to be adopted and with the amounts of compensation.
I was particularly struck by the fact that these Regulations are based largely on the 1949 Regulations, which is ten years ago—a lot of change has taken place in our ideas in ten years—and on subsequent Regulations that have been made under comparable Acts of this House.
I have been concerned with that part of the Regulations dealing with resettlement compensation. I do not want to make heavy weather of this, and if I did not believe that there were only a comparatively few people, if any, involved I would be inclined to want us to have a very long debate on it.
I come back to what has been said before on both sides of this House about those people who are 50 years of age and over, who find it very difficult to get fresh jobs if the job which they have been doing all their lives is taken away from them. I should have thought that

to talk of resettlement compensation for 13 weeks for such people, and for 26 weeks for claimants over 45 years of age, was a bit thick. I should have thought that we might have been much more generous with the over-45s or the over-50s who have not been able to find alternative work.
It is no part of the Regulations to place people on a pension for the rest of their lives merely because for the time being they are no longer able to follow their normal occupation by reason of the Act of Parliament. As was emphasised earlier from these benches, employment is much more important than compensation. I should have thought that, particularly where a man is 50 or over, the period of resettlement might be considerably longer than is laid down in these Regulations.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, therefore, what is to happen to the man who is of such an age, who has found it very difficult to get a new job and, in fact, is not able to get a satisfactory job. Will he be compelled to take any job, in accordance with the Regulations in the terms which have been read, or is there somewhere within the Regulations provision for opportunity being afforded to an individual of that character to have a longer period so that he is not forced into the kind of work which would be just a nightmare to him? I myself do not consider that 26 weeks would be a reasonable time for a man over 50 who had spent all his life in one kind of work. Will he be given reasonable time and help from the Ministry of Labour to find a job for which he would be fitted?
This is very important. We are considering here men whose jobs are at stake not because of anything that they themselves have done, not because of misdemeanour on their part, or because they are inefficient or incompetent, but simply because we have decided, by an Act of Parliament, that we shall devise fresh methods of organising a particular industry, in this case the electricity industry.
I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power will probably know the Regulations backwards and will be able to point to some other part of the Regulations and show


that men who have reached this age and who find it very difficult to get another job in their own particular line will be provided for. It is important that they should be resettled in a job which is reasonable and fair to them. They must not be just thrown on one side at the end of 26 weeks. Anything which the hon. Gentleman can say about that will be well received by us on this side of the House, although the Regulations, as far as we are concerned, will go through unimpeded.

11.22 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): At this late hour, the House will not wish me to take a great deal of time, but I want to say a word or two about the various points which have been made. First, I should like to say, for my part, that the Ministry of Power and the Scottish Office are very grateful for the cooperative and sensible spirit in which these Regulations have been negotiated.
I will begin by agreeing—it is a sort of blanket explanation of much that has been said—that, mercifully, very few people will be affected. This has meant that we have had a reasonable time to conduct negotiations, without feeling that it was desperately necessary to settle something because there was a large queue of people in need. On the other hand, of course, as the provision about ten years for making a claim shows, it is quite possible that people will still be affected, one here and one there. Unfortunately, we have to try to cover every possibility. One cannot know where the odd man will be or whether he will be damnified in one way or another.
The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) paid me a compliment in saying that I knew the Regulations backwards. I will reply by saying that I think there are some parts of them which would read more simply if one did read them backwards. They are appallingly complicated, like most things which lawyers produce in trying to provide for the rights of many people in a lot of hypothetical circumstances, which may not arise for years.
Nevertheless, it is right to say—this, again, is a sort of blanket explanation—that nine-tenths, or even ninety-nine hundredths, of these Regulations are

common form. I shall come to the question of how far we ought to follow precedent, but in almost every provision they follow well-established principles and wording which have, by and large, worked very well hitherto. That covers, in outline, the point which was made about the conditions which were to be taken into account in considering long-term compensation.
These provisions have worked fairly well. There is an appeal to the tribunal. I am advised that this form of words in the Scottish Regulations—for practical purposes it is the same in the English Regulations—has not caused difficulty in corresponding Regulations in other industries or in previous Regulations governing the electricity industry.
Coming back to the numbers affected in Scotland, the number is small partly because the South of Scotland Electricity Board has made great endeavours to secure that no one has suffered. I do not think that this ought to be made a subject of criticism. It is a tribute to the way in which, aided, of course, by the fact that it is an expanding industry, the matter has been arranged. It has worked out fairly well. In any particular case—and this deals with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Blyth, whether there might be a dispute as to whether a man really had tried to secure alternative employment—it is a matter for the Board; but in a disputed case the man can go to the tribunal, and, so far as I know, no difficulties have arisen.
So I think that the real point comes back to the criticisms or reservations made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer), who knows so much about these things. However, I think he would agree that there must be a qualifying period. He would probably agree that there must be some provision for sickness, and I think that, on the whole, he would agree that there must be some period of limitation after which claims cannot be made. These are like the points we had on the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Bill; it is a question of whether ten years would be right in a certain case and eight years would be right in another and three years in another case and six months would be right in another case.
On that, I would put this to the hon. Gentleman. It is true that we cannot go on for ever saying that because that was done in 1947 or 1949, therefore it cannot be altered. Of course, it is quite a tricky business to alter the common form because all these compensation provisions are interlocking. They interlock with the terms of the superannuation scheme. They interlock with similar provisions in other industries.
I would put it to the hon. Gentleman that, for the very reason that in this case we are dealing with so few people, this is not the appropriate occasion for altering settled Governmental policy, as followed by Governments formed from both sides of the House, as I think the hon. Gentleman himself put it. If we were now considering a case which would clearly affect large numbers of people then it might be—I am not saying what the decision of the House would be—it might be an appropriate occasion, on such Regulations, to take a look at these settled principles. Clearly, they cannot be altered frequently without considering their implications in other industries.
I would suggest, for the very reasons which the hon. Gentleman gave, and while admitting at once that there are some reservations on the part of the trade unions on the correctness of the actual figures here, that we must have some figure. These figures have worked fairly well. They are not likely in this case to affect many people. This is, therefore, I would suggest, not the appropriate occasion to embark on some alteration of settled policy.
But now, to sweeten that point of view, with which, I hope, right hon and hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree, my noble Friend would be prepared, to look into the question of the geographical limits over which a man can be called to accept other employment. Without giving any promise in the matter I would be prepared to explore with the Electricity Council whether it would be possible in some way to meet the point which the hon. Gentleman put in the admittedly extreme case, that a man who had been employed at John o'Groats might be suddenly told to accept a job at band's End, or vice versa. I see a Scottish Member about to rise. I hasten

to add that the same thing would apply the other way round.
Without giving any firm promise, I will look into that matter. Obviously, it does not involve altering the Regulations, which we cannot do. With that offer to see whether we can meet at this last stage one of the points made by the hon. Member for Cleveland, I think that, on balance, both sides of the House will think that the sooner these Regulations are made and forgotten the better.

Mr. Ross: Having displayed his geographical strong point, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us what the Minister of Power has to do with the Scottish Regulations?

Sir I. Horobin: The short answer, I think, is that we are dealing in these Regulations with things which can happen on transfer from one situation to another, and under the Act the Minister of Power was responsible for employment. Therefore, so to speak, the Minister of Power was concerned with the original conditions and the Secretary of State is concerned with the new conditions. Both signatures go, but I do not think that it will make a pennyworth of difference to the amount of money which anyone gets.

Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman said that the sooner these Regulations are made and forgotten the better. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) would have disagreed with the desirability of forgetting about them. I do not think that the Minister told us in his speech why the Scottish Regulations have not been made until now. I can understand that it took two years to make the English Regulations after the 1957 Act, but why has it taken five years to make the Scottish Regulations? Was any consideration given to the matter by the Scottish Office before the English Act was passed in 1957?

Sir I. Horobin: I understand that the answer to that is "Yes." I am advised—of course, this is outside my Department—that negotiations started before the English Act. Why it has taken so long to negotiate the Scottish Regulations, I do not know, but I am glad that the negotiations have been successful in the long run.

Mr. Palmer: I raised a point with the hon. Gentleman which is of some concern to the trade unions. It is the curious difference in wording between the 1949 Regulations and the present Regulations. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would give us some kind of explanation of that.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman just told my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) that the Scottish Regulations were outside his Department. My whole point is that they are not. The Minister of Power has to append his signature. How can the hon. Gentleman justify it in one case and, two minutes later, say that they are outside his Department?

Sir I. Horobin: I am not quite clear what is upsetting the hon. Gentleman. Putting it at its lowest, why will it hurt anybody if two people rather than one sign a bit of paper? I do not quite understand why the hon. Gentleman is so worried about it.

Mr. Ross: If two people sign it, they take responsibility for what is in it. If they take responsibility, they must equally take responsibility for the delay. When we inquire about the delay, the hon. Gentleman says, "It is outside my Department." If it is, then his Department should not sign it.

Sir I. Horobin: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being a little unreasonable. I merely said that it was outside my Department. I could only give him the answer as I am advised, and I am advised that the negotiations in the Scottish case began before the English Act.
Obviously, it is a governmental responsibility. The Government are one, at any rate on this side of the House. The reason that the Ministry of Power is concerned in the matter is, as I endeavoured to explain, that prior to that Act the Minister of Power was responsible as the employer, as it were. Therefore, the two Ministers are joined together and both will sign, but no one will get either more or less as a result of the signatures.
I pointed out that when these negotiations started, my Department was not concerned with them, but I am advised that they started before the English Act.

On the point of the difference of wording, I am advised again that this is a purely legal point and that the effect of the two sets of words is precisely the same.

Mr. Palmer: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Electricity (Staff Compensation) Regulations, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.

South of Scotland Electricity Board (Staff Compensation) Regulations, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 7th July], approved.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes- Young.]

11.35 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: My purpose in raising this matter on the Adjournment is to draw attention to the present position which arises on the licensing of the carriage of goods in Great Britain. My main purpose is to try to ensure that there is fair play, in particular for the small haulier, whose position at present may be in jeopardy under the licensing system as it is now developing.
I should particularly like the Minister's assurance on three matters. First, I believe that it is necessary at this juncture to draw the attention of all concerned to the basic fact that the pattern of trade and industry in the country is for ever changing, that transport must follow trade and industry and that, if road haulage is to succeed in carrying out its duty, the small operator, in particular must be given the greatest flexibility of operation.
The second assurance that I want is that the Minister will make clear to the Transport Tribunal, which, in turn, instructs the licensing authorities, that an A licence is unconditional and shall not be subject to the attraction of any condition. It is also time that it was made plain to the tribunals that they are not judicial tribunals but administrative tribunals, that the Minister has the power and the right and the authority to


make plain what the policy of these tribunals shall be, and that they are subject to that authority and not to any overriding authority of their own.
Thirdly, I should like an assurance that in view of the increased flow of traffic on our roads at present and the increasing flow in the future we shall ensure a full and proper economic use of our roads. This means that it is time that the Government prepared a way for action designed to encourage traffic in the future into the normal trade channels, namely, those who are engaged in the trade, that is, those who hold A licences, the British Road Services and the railways, and away from those not so similarly engaged in trade.
First, I want to show the basis of my argument for a flexible policy. Transport of all kinds is similar in its nature and I hope that in future we may have a policy for all transport which has a similar and integrated philosophy. Transport being similar, we find that the large operators with recognised traffic routes have defined spheres of operation. Then there are the small operators who tend to act as the tramps of trade, whatever aspect of transport they follow. In shipping there is no licensing system. In road transport there is. The small tramps at sea provide invaluable services both locally and over long distance from port to port or place to place wherever there is surplus traffic to be lifted. The same applies in the air.
On the roads, the bigger undertakings are gradually buying out the small operators, but it is the small operator who is adaptable. He has to change from route to route wherever there is traffic to be lifted, wherever heavy traffic may develop on a trade route, or even in an emergency or for other special reasons. Thus, whilst it is easy for the large operator to define his normal user, the small operator may find that the pattern of trade changes so fast that his trade may change completely within a matter of a few years. Indeed, some small tramps, if I may continue to use the word, may find they have to move wherever there is a surplus of traffic to carry.
The spirit of the licensing system of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, confirms what I have said. That Act

made it clear that there should be no condition attaching to an A licence of a long-distance road haulier, small or large. In seeking to restrict the A licence, as it is trying to do on occasions, the Transport Tribunal is quite wrong. I see no argument to the contrary. If reference is made to the House of Lords decision in the Great Western Railway v. the West Midland Traffic Area Licensing Authority in 1936 Appeal Cases, at page 132, Lord Blanesburgh said:
An A licence is a licence granted to an applicant whose business is that of a carrier of goods. A limited carriers', or a B licence, is one granted to an applicant whose business is other than that of a carrier of goods… An A licence when granted is always unrestricted in area…. There is in the case of an A licence, no power under the Act to restrict its operation to any district, or between particular places.
It is fairly well known that no restriction of area can be made, but there are some who think—among them inspectors under the Minister's guidance—that when a licence is due to be renewed, as large numbers are now falling due to be renewed, the licensing authority should refuse an A licence where the carrier has changed, or intends to change, his normal pattern of trade or user. This is quite wrong, and it arises because of a misunderstanding of Section 5 (1, c) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, which says:
A person applying for a licence shall submit to the Licensing Authority a statement in the prescribed form … specifying, the facilities for the transport of goods intended to be provided by him under the licence for other persons including particulars of the district within which, or the places between which, it is intended that the authorised vehicles will normally be used for the purpose of carrying such goods for hire or reward.
As to the future, the Government should look carefully at this Section, which, in my view, is unnecessary, and requires amendment. At present it is important to see its purpose and limitations. It is not intended to limit the area of operation. It is intended to specify the normal area of operation so that objectors may enter objections and contend that there is more than sufficient traffic in the area to meet its needs.
In 1933 it was put in for two purposes—first, the protection of the railways, and, secondly, the protection of the industry against an unnecessary quantum of traffic. Thus, it is intended to assist the licensing authority at the time of the


renewal, and no more. In the light of this, I want to consider what was said at the time. The Minister of Transport in 1933 was that brilliant Minister—indeed, he was one of the most able Minister of this century—Mr. Oliver Stanley, and in reply to a very p½riment question put by Mr. Aled Roberts, of Wrexham, who asked why the Minister should be asked these questions if the operator was to be allowed to go all over the country, the Minister said—I am quoting from the 10th July issue of Motor Transport:
From the point of view of the licensing authority, it is true that if they decide to give a man an A licence, there are no restrictions on the licence, but usually a licensing authority, in deciding whether or not to grant a licence at all, has to consider the question of the excess facilities for transport, and, clearly, one of the factors is a knowledge of the area in which the transport, for which application is made, is to be used. It is clear that this information will not defeat the intention of the Bill, which prevents any restriction as to locality of user being put on the holder of an A licence.
The Motor Transport then goes on to deal with the arguments that arise.
On 30th June, this year, Mr. Hanlon, sitting as the Northern Licensing Authority, came to the clearest of wrong decisions, for this reason. On the resumed hearing of the application by S. and J. Wanless of Haltwhistle, for an A licence for one vehicle, he said that he would give the applicant his licence only if he would agree to a normal user for goods for Robson's Border Transport Limited. A solicitor argued that this could be dangerous, because, if Robson's no longer gave him the work, he would have no work at all. To which retorted Mr. Hanlon, "In that case, he can apply to me for a variation."
But there is no burden on the person to do that. I want to make clear, with respect to Mr. Hanlon, that he had no power to do that and was going far outside the spirit and intention of the Act. He was not making a judicial but an administrative decision and one for which direction should be received. So far as the Transport Tribunal is laying down the rules for the guidance of licensing authorities so, also, should the Minister make plain the position with regard to the Tribunal. In that case the proper licence should have specified, "general goods, Great Britain."

A person operating with one, two, three or four lorries is no danger to British Railways, or British Road Services, or any of the holders of a large number of A licences. He will not interfere with the competitive power of anyone. The interest of the small man is that flexibility of trade requires that his operations should not be limited. Therefore, it is clear that the proper application for the small man is merely to indicate on the form what is the pattern of his general trade and to point out that that may change and go to a wider area.
Many of these men have paid substantial sums of money for what were known as special A licences at the time of the 1953 Act. They came into the business after many years in which there had been no pattern of trade, nothing since before the war or immediately after, and after a period when they had had to stand the abomination of Socialism. Having got rid of some of these restrictions which had altered the whole pattern of trade and expanded and extended the C licences out of all recognition, they found themselves emerging into a pattern of trade which might be different and they feel there may be a danger of not getting an A licence as a renewal for the C licence. I hope that the Minister will disabuse them of this fear.
The large operator is not in this danger. As we know, there has been a relatively enormous increase in C licences compared with A and B licences which, I believe, have increased by only 30 per cent. over the 1947 figure when the Act came into force. If we have a clear sphere of influence of British Road Services and the railways and the large operators in fair competition, an integrated system of road transport will be achieved. With the overhaul of the licensing system, no doubt after another General Election, we shall be able to ensure that both road and rail have a free interplay and are able to operate effectively.
The small road haulier, like the farmer, is. thank heaven, not a lawyer. I have examined this matter carefully over a period, and my interests are well known to the Minister as those of a lawyer and one who has regard for the interests of the road haulage industry. The road


haulier will not go back to the licensing authority for a variation any more than will the farmer. He does not want to, nor does he think that he ought to. He does not take professional advice, nor has he the funds to fight with lawyers before the licensing authority or on appeal to the Tribunal. It is manifestly unfair that he should be penalised by the big purse of the railways and the British Road Services, which are both subsidised by the taxpayer, in his fight against them to achieve his own freedom.
This penalty can be obviated by a clear statement by the Minister tonight, or at an early date if he feels unable to make it tonight, that these small men will be protected in their livelihood and will be given the opportunity, even if they play only a small part in the transport trade, to play the part which it was intended that they should play when the Conservative Party gave them the opportunity to buy back their business.
May I conclude with a personal note? I have been dealing with the principles of the case of the Great Western Railway against the West Midland Traffic Authority. You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that the then Mr. Walter Monckton led you in that case back in 1936. The principles which were laid down in that case and argued by you, Mr. Speaker, and by your leader then, are the principles which I seek to see upheld in the House tonight.

11.53 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Richard Nugent): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) on his speech on this interesting subject of the licensing of goods vehicles in Great Britain. I listened to him with interest, because I recognise that as President of the National Conference of Road Transport Clearing Houses he speaks with authority on the subject. I congratulate him on his lucidity, and would say that although I am not able to agree with everything he said I was certainly interested to hear his case.
I have no difficulty in agreeing with my hon. Friend that the small longdistance road haulier needs flexibility if he is to meet the continuous changes in the trade pattern of this country. I

accept that in such a highly variable business as road haulage a large measure of flexibility is essential, not only for the small hauliers but for all, and it is evident that Parliament recognised this in the Act of 1933 in giving licensing authorities such a wide discretion in dealing with applications as is set out in Section 6. The Government's view certainly conforms to this.
My hon. Friend fears that this intention is in danger of frustration by present trends and he also fears that the smaller hauliers may be intimidated by the great strength of British Railways and British Road Services. I will deal with those points in a moment, if I have time.
First, I want to deal with my hon. Friend's contention that the A licence is not restricted for area. That is true, but, as my hon. Friend rightly said. Section 5 (1) (c) of the 1933 Act, which he quoted, requires that the applicant for a licence should state what his normal user will be, as it is now known. In addition, as Section 6 (2, b) says, the licensing authority, in reaching his decision, must take into account the previous conduct of the applicant in this capacity as a carrier of goods. In other words, the licensing authority is bound to take into account on an application for renewal what was the declared normal user at the last application and what has happened in the meantime.
My hon. Friend is, therefore, quite right in saying that an A licence cannot be restricted for area but, in effect, the normal user does set a limitation on the licence, and the licensing authority is bound to have regard to that not only at the time of the granting of the licence, but also, as Section 6 makes quite clear, at the time of the next renewal. Despite the ingenuity of my hon. Friend's argument it is quite clear to me that that is the law as laid down, and that a major amendment would be required to alter it. It would, therefore, not be possible for my right hon. Friend to contemplate giving the instructions that my hon. Friend suggests to the Transport Tribunal and to licensing authorities to vary the practice in this matter.
I think that it is also clear that my hon. Friend is not right in his view that licensing authorities and the Transport Tribunal are purely administrative. They


have, of course, administrative functions, but Section 6 of the 1933 Act makes it plain that the licensing authority is to have very wide discretion in granting licences and that, in practice, amounts to a semi-judicial function. That has certainly been the practice for the last twenty-five years and, in my belief, that is what Parliament intended, and that is the right way for this very difficult technical and practical matter to be dealt with.
That being so, although I listened with interest to my hon. Friend's argument, I cannot entirely agree with his interpretation there. However, I would say, having made this qualification about the conditional effect—indeed, the restrictive effect—that the declaration of normal user is bound to have on the A licence, that, in practice, of course, it is well understood that the normal user is no more than normal user, and that the licensing authority does accept a reasonable degree—a considerable degree—of flexibility in the haulier's interpretation of it. That is to say, the licensing authority will accept runs and business other than were actually defined in the declaration provided that, substantially, the business does conform with the declaration of normal user. But that is the essential degree of flexibility which I fully recognise in my hon. Friend's contention should be there to meet the obvious practical needs of the industry.
Let me say just a word on recent decisions that have been made by the Transport Tribunal in this matter. There are two cases—although I think that my hon. Friend did not refer to them—the Knight case and the Hesketh case. The latter went to the High Court. Both have caused a great deal of interest and, I think, some concern in the haulage world. In both cases the haulier lost his case for renewal of his licence, and in both cases the facts, broadly, were that the actual haulage business that had been carried on in the previous five years had been completely different from that declared in the original application
If an application is to have any significance at all this does not seem surprising or revolutionary to me, but really an inevitable decision if the law was to be conformed with on the lines I have already indicated. In both cases, the Tribunal was at pains to make it clear that licensing authorities have

power to grant or to refuse an application within their discretion. In other words, that the decision of the licensing authority would depend on the facts of each particular case.
As I have said, the licensing authority does import a degree of flexibility. That has been the practice in the past, and it continues; and I am sure that it should be so. That is the view of the Government, but it may help if I add this. We regard it as important. If we should find that the natural development of the law as it stands was resulting in too much rigidity in the goods licensing system and hampering the road haulage industry then we should be obliged to look again at the present legislation and to consider whether any change was called for; but, our view at present, is that the system is functioning satisfactorily. I hope that this will be some assurance that the Government does regard this element of flexibility as essential—quite as essential as does my hon. Friend.
There are just a few words about the danger of intimidation by the "big boys", if I may use the colloquial words of the industry. The machinery is such that the small man has protection. He normally appears in person before the licensing authority, which treats him courteously and sympathetically, and he need not incur the expense of legal representation. Of course, if he goes to appeal, he may have to face the costs of engaging counsel because that is usually advisable at a Transport Tribunal hearing. That may cost him £50 or £100. The court costs are £2 a day, so they cannot be serious, and the total is not high enough to form a basis for intimidation against any haulier who thinks that he has a good case. I should have thought that the procedure here is far from likely to expose these men to intimidation. I should think that it would be a protection.
So far as the informal procedure of the road/rail negotiating committees is concerned, that is an entirely voluntary arrangement. The initiative came from the Road Haulage Association and I cannot see that this procedure is against the haulier's interests. The haulier need not, of course, go to his local committee. He can go direct to the licensing authority, and I think that this machinery is as much for his protection as for the big men.
On the point about C licences, I should like to remind my hon. Friend that although there has been a great growth in these the survey which was published by us recently does indicate that in the broad picture there is no evidence to show that C licence operation is inefficient. In any case, I can certainly hold out no hope of this Government restricting in any way the operation of C licence vehicles. We feel that their unrestricted operation is an essential part of industry and should so continue to be.
I have not been able to deal with details of my hon. Friend's speech, but T know of his great interest in these matters and of the great help which he

has given to the haulage industry. I hope that I have said enough to reassure him that the Government regards flexibility as an essential part of the machinery which will enable the road haulage industry to meet the changing pattern of industrial life, and that we recognise the essential part which the small road haulier plays in this picture.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order

Adjourned at five minutes past Twelve o'clock.